ArticleBMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation2026
Objective physical performance and exercise tests of patients with lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) affects a considerable portion of global population and is one of the main reasons for lumbar spine surgery in individuals over the age of 65. Diagnosing LSS remains challenging due to a lack of universally accepted criteria and a weak correlation between imaging severity and symptoms. Functional assessment, including standardized treadmill or walking tests, is recommended. While self-reported questionnaires are commonly used, objective exertion tests are also important for assessing symptom severity and treatment outcomes. This study aims to evaluate and map the scientific knowledge on objective physical performance and exercise tests for patients with LSS.
methodThis scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and is reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A protocol was registered on open science framework (OSF). The review question was informed by the Population-Concept-Context framework. A systematic search of CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was conducted from inception to December, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies against predefined eligibility criteria and extracted data using a standardized charting form. Findings were synthesized narratively and presented in tabular and graphical formats.
results57 studies met the inclusion criteria. In most studies, the diagnosis of LSS was made using a combination of clinical assessments, such as the patient's history and/or physical examination, along with MRI findings. After reviewing the literature on exertional tests for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and extracting the relevant data, the tests were grouped into six categories: walking tests, treadmill tests, cycling tests, standing lumbar extension tests, accelerometer testing, and other functional mobility and balance tests.
conclusionExertional tests in patients with LSS have diagnostic, evaluative, and rehabilitative value, supporting both clinical decision-making and outcome assessment. Among available methods, walking tests, particularly those quantifying neurogenic claudication, are the most valid and reliable objective measures. Accelerometer-based assessments effectively capture ambulation capacity, while treadmill and standing lumbar extension tests show promise but require further validation. Additional research is needed to standardize protocols and determine how disability severity influences test selection and performance outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.