Sit to stand assessment and prognosis in low back pain

Executive assessment

Chair rising is a clinically relevant activity in low-back pain, but the result depends on what is measured. Five-repetition time describes repeated-transfer capacity; a 30-second count adds sustained repetition; movement analysis describes how the task is accomplished. Neither time nor count is a direct measurement of maximal trunk strength, leg power or rate of force development. The same total time can conceal different trunk, hip and knee contributions.

For chronic nonspecific low-back pain, timed chair rising has useful reliability evidence and some direct responsiveness evidence. However, several commonly repeated numerical claims need qualification. The foundational Simmonds study is inconsistently summarized in a later review; Smeets's 7.6-s agreement figure was back-converted from inverse time at the sample mean; and Andersson's 4.1–9.8-s important-change range came from two different methods. These are not interchangeable universal thresholds. [1‑4]

Instrumented chair-rise analysis can reveal restricted or redistributed spinal movement, but apparent differences depend on speed, chair, subgroup and segment definition. A 2025 classifier's 93% same-cohort accuracy should not be interpreted as prognosis: participants actually completed a modified six-repetition task from standing, with a foot tap while seated and an end repetition removed. It therefore does not validate an ordinary clinical five-repetition video score. [5‑9]

Remote timing is promising. A direct 2024 nonspecific-LBP study found high relative reliability for clinician-observed home testing, but its small reported detectable-change values have an insufficiently explained derivation. Strong agreement between raters watching the same video is also different from reproducibility of a new performance on another day. [10, 11]

The most defensible rehabtools application is a standardized chair-rise result with task completion, assistance, pain and movement-quality context. Individual future-risk or recovery predictions need separate prospective validation. This report concerns evidence and measurement design; it is not individual treatment advice.

Scope and search approach

The main population is adults with nonspecific or primary low-back pain, especially chronic presentations. Acute, subacute, recurrent and persistent states are distinguished where the original studies permit. Lumbar spinal stenosis, radiculopathy, degenerative spinal-surgery cohorts, postoperative groups and other specific disorders are treated as separate evidence strata, not substitutes for nonspecific-LBP validation.

This is a critical narrative review rather than a registered systematic review, exhaustive screening exercise or meta-analysis. Native dated PubMed queries for measurement, prognosis, and protocol/mechanism/technology returned 36, 66 and 103 records. All connector pages were archived; the latter two streams contained only 54 and 79 unique identifiers. Official NCBI ESearch/EFetch independently reconciled all 36, 66 and 103 records, with no missing IDs. Corresponding native Scopus streams returned 54, 119 and 155 unique records, matching their provider totals across all archived pages. Search slices overlap and are not counts of unique eligible studies.

What does a chair rise test measure

Capacity strategy and symptom response

Rising from a chair requires forward momentum, transfer of support from chair to feet, lower-limb extension, balance control and stabilization in standing. Returning to sitting adds controlled descent and seat contact. In low-back pain, trunk inclination and the timing of spine, pelvis and hip motion can alter without a proportional change in total time. Conversely, time can improve through a faster strategy without normalization of every segmental movement.

Five-repetition sit-to-stand, repeated sit-to-stand-to-sit, and a single laboratory transition must be distinguished. Some tests begin seated and end in standing; others include the final return to the seat. Studies may time a verbal command, movement onset, seat-off or another event. A difference in endpoint can be substantial relative to a short test duration. The name “five times sit-to-stand” is therefore insufficient protocol documentation.

Performance tasks correlate only partially with self-reported function. The foundational comparison and construct studies support treating observed performance and reported disability as complementary. A low correlation is not automatically invalidity when the measures assess different constructs, but it also does not justify claims that a stopwatch captures the complete disability experience. Context, confidence, activity choice and participation remain outside the timed task. [2, 12, 13]

Time and count are not interchangeable

The five-repetition test fixes the number of transfers and measures elapsed time. It may be useful when a brief challenge is desired and the person can complete the required repetitions. The 30-second chair stand fixes duration and counts successful rises; repetition criteria and the handling of a partially completed final rise affect the score. A one-minute test would impose a different duration and symptom burden again. There is no defensible arithmetic conversion between these scores.

The 2016 field-versus-laboratory study compared the 30-second chair stand with Balance Master outputs for weight transfer, rising index and sway velocity. Higher reliability of the repetition count did not show that the laboratory variables were meaningless; they represent different aspects of performance. Conversely, technical sophistication did not automatically confer superior reproducibility. [14]

A practical selection should ask whether the main question is speed of repeated transfers, capacity to sustain repetition, inability or assistance, movement strategy, or symptom provocation. Adding every available output can increase burden and false-positive interpretation without improving the assessment.

Strength power and RFD require separate measurements

A fast chair rise depends partly on force-generating capacity, but total completion time also includes movement planning, balance, acceleration, descent, pauses, fatigue and task choices. Associations with quadriceps strength do not make time a dynamometer. A person can compensate with a different trunk strategy, use the arms, change foot placement or reduce the excursion while retaining a similar time.

Mechanical power requires work per time or a compatible force–velocity calculation. Whole-body centre-of-mass power, hip power, knee power and a regression-based estimate derived from mass and chair-rise time are different constructs. Force-plate estimates must state whether hand forces, chair forces and body displacement were captured. Video does not directly measure force. An estimated power score should retain its model assumptions and validation population.

Rate of force development is the slope of a force–time signal under a defined onset and time window. Fast visible movement or a short chair-rise time is not a measurement of RFD. No threshold from a healthy older-adult power equation or a knee-OA chair-rise study should be imported into nonspecific LBP without validation. This distinction is particularly important if rehabtools eventually combines the chair-rise module with strength or force-platform assessments.

Table 1 Chair rise tasks and their distinct constructs

Do not merge these outputs into an unvalidated general function score.

Population pain and task context

Duration recurrence and specific pathology

Most direct measurement studies concern chronic symptoms. Their findings should not automatically be applied during an acute disabling episode, shortly after surgery, or during remission from recurrent pain. The 2019 capacity review's authors explicitly clarified that their recommendations principally concern chronic LBP despite a broader duration eligibility criterion. [1, 15]

Radicular pain, neurologic deficits and claudication can affect chair rise for reasons additional to local back pain. The widely cited 2018 degenerative-lumbar study and the 2019 home-testing study recruited people with structural degenerative diagnoses, often in spine-care pathways. Their thresholds and video completion experience are valuable for that population, but should not replace direct nonspecific-LBP evidence. [11, 16]

Research subgroups can also change the observed direction of a difference. The 2021 kinematic study examined 20 men with a defined flexion-plus-rotation movement-system subgroup against 20 controls, using a height-adjusted chair and comfortable transitions. This is narrower than an unselected chronic-LBP clinic. It should not be described as the characteristic movement pattern of all people with back pain. [17]

Pain fear effort and confidence

Pain at rest is not necessarily the pain that constrains a transfer. Record baseline pain and the person's experience during or immediately after the task, together with stopping or avoidance. A reluctance to move quickly may reflect expected symptoms, uncertainty about the instruction, perceived safety, fatigue or another impairment. It should not be labelled noncompliance or symptom exaggeration from the video alone.

The relationship between fear-related constructs and maximal performance is supported across a heterogeneous literature, but is neither uniform nor sufficient for causal inference. A general fear questionnaire and fear of this particular chair-rise task can provide different information. Standardizing the language used to introduce the task is therefore part of measurement control. [18]

A study of 230 older adults used pain ratings after chair rising, a 6-minute walk and stairs to create an aggregate movement-evoked-pain score. That score was associated with contemporaneous self-reported function and TUG performance beyond several covariates. Because the pain score combined three tasks, its findings cannot be assigned to chair rise alone. Nor does a baseline analysis become prognostic because participants were drawn from a prospective parent cohort. [19]

The smaller MEPLO study examined safety and feasibility of movement-evoked-pain assessment in older adults. It helps support purposeful symptom recording but does not validate an unrestricted painful-repetition challenge for remote self-administration. Safety screening, assistance and symptom interpretation remain separate from the automation of timing. [20]

Reliability and measurement error

Clinical timing encouraging reproducibility conditional precision

Simmonds's original study tested 44 people with LBP and 48 controls twice on two days. The abstract describes excellent intertester reliability and less consistent day-to-day reliability; averaging repeated chair-rise trials improved reproducibility. A later review displays the low within-session ICC of 0.45 under sit-to-stand, although the original abstract assigns this exception to repeated trunk flexion. Until the original tables resolve the discrepancy, that value and any associated derived chair-rise error estimate should not be copied into a clinical tool. [1, 2]

Smeets used the average of two five-rise performances, retested by the same observer after 5–9 days in 53 participants. Although the cohort was labelled nonspecific CLBP, 50.9% reported below-knee radiation; this should not be reclassified as confirmed radiculopathy. The inverse-time ICC was 0.91; the often-cited ±7.6-s agreement half-width was converted at the sample mean. It is not a constant MDC for all baseline times. Prior task experience did not significantly change test–retest differences in that sample. [3]

Özüdoğru and colleagues subsequently reported very high inter-rater and retest reliability in nonspecific chronic LBP, together with associations with balance, quadriceps strength, disability and pain. These associations support a multifactorial functional test rather than a pure strength measure. The original article is now available: 40 participants were analyzed, with two raters one hour apart and a seven-day repeat. Which SD entered the MDC formula remains unclear, so the MDC should not be implemented as an individual threshold; no patient-important change was established. [21]

Kahraman’s study, described as including 38 people in the later Jakobsson review, retested after 48–72 hours. The 30-second count had ICC 0.94, whereas the Balance Master outputs had ICCs of 0.62–0.69. These are direct population-specific comparisons, but cannot be interpreted as evidence that every 30-second protocol has the same error, or that the count is a criterion standard for movement quality. Full numerical error tables were not available in this pass. [14]

What a change threshold must specify

For each error estimate, retain the test version, number and selection of trials, chair, assistance rule, unit, interval, population and confidence level. An ICC for the average of several trials cannot be assigned to a single trial. An inter-rater ICC from two observers timing one performance does not quantify day-to-day variation. A standard error of the group mean is not an individual standard error of measurement.

The usual individual MDC95 calculation is 1.96 × square root of 2 × SEM for two independent measurements with equal error. It does not convert measurement error into importance. A repeatability interval with systematic bias is not simply a symmetric zero-centred responder threshold. If error grows with slower performance, transformed or proportional limits may be more appropriate than a fixed number of seconds.

A large sample mean improvement can be estimated precisely even if many individual changes remain within error. Conversely, a person may value an improvement that a short test cannot confidently distinguish from day-to-day fluctuation. Those are different interpretive questions and should both remain visible.

Responsiveness and patient important change

Andersson's study provides the most influential direct anchor-based evidence. It evaluated 198 people with chronic nonspecific LBP before and after ten weeks of treatment, using global perceived effect as the external anchor. Chair rising reached an AUC of 0.75 and was one of only two responsive tasks in the six-test battery. The ROC improvement cut-off was 4.1 seconds, whereas one-sided detectable improvement was 9.8 seconds. The two methods answer different questions; these are not interchangeable estimates of a universal threshold. [4]

That range should not be presented as if all values were interchangeable estimates of a single universal threshold. The authors used a receiver-operating-characteristic cut-off and a method based on detectable improvement. The methods answer related but different questions and depend on how improved, stable and worsened participants were classified. The original author-posted full article is now available. GPE categories 3–5 counted as unchanged and 6–7 as improved. The ROC improvement of 4.1 seconds must remain distinct from one-sided detectable improvement of 9.8 seconds. A faithful report can retain the study's finding while refusing to implement an unqualified 4.1-s rule.

The anchor was a global judgment of treatment effect, not necessarily the importance of chair-rise performance itself. Improvements in pain, confidence, walking or work could influence that response. A threshold from this relatively impaired rehabilitation population may not fit someone whose baseline chair-rise time is already short. For example, a fixed 4.1-s improvement consumes a much larger proportion of a 10-s baseline than of a 25-s baseline.

Responsiveness also depends on what is measured. Total time may change without a parallel change in lumbar excursion; segmental kinematics may change with little difference in time. A preliminary manual-therapy study can demonstrate that these outcomes are capable of changing, but an immediate pre–post difference does not establish treatment efficacy, a minimal important change or future benefit. [22]

Future work should predefine the intended construct, ask a task-relevant patient anchor, report its relation to observed change, distinguish improvement from worsening, assess baseline dependence and compare the important-change estimate with protocol-matched individual error. Until then, symptom context and the patient's own priorities are more informative than a generic pass/fail band.

Table 2 Clinical error and importance source specific restrictions

High ICC, detectable change and patient-important change answer separate questions.

Movement quality and instrumented assessment

Single versus multiple spinal segments

The 2019 kinematic review included eight cross-sectional studies and found slower transitions and altered lumbar, hip or trunk motion, but graded the evidence as low. The studies did not establish a single diagnostic pattern. Differences in duration, angle, velocity and variability should not be collapsed into a general label of “poor movement.” [23]

Shum's earlier work and Christe's multi-segment analysis illustrate why the choice of model matters. A single lumbar segment can conceal different upper- and lower-lumbar behaviour. Christe's small study of ten patients and eleven controls found reduced sagittal movement and velocity at selected spinal regions. It describes a group-associated strategy; it does not prove that reduced motion caused pain or that increasing every measured angle will improve outcomes. [6, 24]

Chair height, feet, arm use and speed change the task mechanics. A chair adjusted to produce 90-degree knee flexion is a different experimental condition from a fixed-height chair used across a range of leg lengths. Free arm movement differs from arms crossed on the chest. A self-selected transition after a standing pause differs from five rapid repetitions. These details should travel with any reported kinematic result.

Repeated measurement is harder than same session discrimination

Pourahmadi retested 23 participants with chronic nonspecific LBP and 23 controls after two hours and 6–8 days, reporting ICC(3,k), SEM and limits of agreement for preferred-speed transitions. The evidence is relevant to those averaged kinematic outputs; it should not be relabelled as reliability of an ordinary stopwatch score. The primary abstract's broad description cannot supply every segment-specific error value. [5]

Christe's 2022 study provides complete-body evidence for the distinction. Twenty patients and twenty controls performed several functional tasks twice within one session and again about a week later. Markers and electrodes remained in place for the within-session repeat but were replaced for the later session. Chair-rise angular-amplitude reliability was generally less impressive between sessions, and angular velocity was particularly variable across the task set. The median MDC across all tasks is not a chair-rise-specific MDC. [7]

Moissenet's original supplementary workbook gives a concrete example: during the height-adjusted, three-repetition task, hip sagittal range had patient within-session ICC 0.90 but between-session ICC 0.57, with between-session MDC95 17.6 degrees. Lumbo-pelvic sagittal range had between-session ICC 0.60 and MDC95 11.7 degrees. These illustrate protocol-specific uncertainty, not a universal movement-quality threshold. [8]

The contrast between studies is not resolved by averaging their ICCs indiscriminately. Populations, marker models, tasks, movement amplitude and within-person variance differ. Reproducibility should be assessed for the exact quantity the clinical tool will display, in the actual setting where it will be repeated.

Coordination classifiers and the danger of a familiar test name

The 2025 study of 44 people with CLBP and 22 controls compared joint and segment coordination, including continuous relative phase and variability. Its combined segment measures classified current group membership with high apparent accuracy. However, the protocol began from standing, required six rapid sit-down/stand-up cycles with a foot tap while seated, and removed a first or last repetition according to movement consistency. This modification should remain explicit. [9]

The model was developed from the same selected cohort in which performance was assessed. Participants were aged 18–55, had BMI 18–25 kg/m² and a restricted disability range; aid use and several comorbidities were excluded. These design choices sharpen the contrast with asymptomatic controls and limit application to an older or more heterogeneous clinic. There was no prospective outcome and no external validation of a future-risk estimate.

Relative-phase variables also depend on filtering, normalization, trimming and segment definitions. A model validated with laboratory markers cannot automatically be deployed using a pose estimator that yields different angles. Both the substituted measurement and the complete model need validation. High classification accuracy cannot compensate for poor between-day reproducibility of the feature used to track an individual.

Table 3 Movement quality findings that should change interpretation

Angles, velocities and coordination require separate output-specific validation.

Video tele assessment and wearable measurement

Clinician observed remote timing

Ozsoy and Uz studied 64 adults with nonspecific chronic LBP using the best of three trials, clinic testing followed by home video assessment within 24 hours, and a relative present. Chair-rise ICCs were 0.966 between modes and 0.979 between remote assessments. Reported SDC95 values were 0.48 and 0.30 s. The derivation of the very small SEMs is insufficiently explained and does not reproduce using the conventional reported-SD/ICC formula; those SDCs are withheld from implementation. Fixed order and selected digital access also limit generalization. [10]

A separate 2019 degenerative-spine study distinguishes remote performance from video scoring particularly well. Among 100 eligible participants, 88 supplied unsupervised results, 64 returned videos and 61 were ratable. Same-recording inter-rater agreement was excellent, but a second rater watching an existing recording does not retest the patient. Correlation with clinic timing also does not establish interchangeable individual change scores without adequate agreement analysis. [11]

The 2026 remote one-leg-stand/TUG/30-second-chair-stand study concerned people with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression. It is relevant adjacent evidence for video administration and reporting, but its surgical population and 30-second task should remain separate from nonspecific-LBP five-rise claims. [25]

Automated interpretation

A conventional video timer can be useful even if it estimates only start, completed repetition count and endpoint. More complex outputs, such as segment angles, velocity, power or coordination, require separate validation. Image quality, camera height, view, clothing, occlusion, frame rate and placement of the chair can alter the result. A system should detect an inadequate view rather than output a plausible but unverified number.

BACPAC's biomechanical-phenotyping protocol outlines depth-camera and other approaches to standardized functional tasks. It represents a research framework, not a completed validation of every proposed clinical feature. Similarly, EL DORADO demonstrates multidomain feasibility but contains mixed diagnoses and descriptive analyses. Neither should be cited as a validated autonomous nonspecific-LBP prognosis engine. [26, 27]

An accelerometer on the trunk, thigh or smart glasses measures the motion of that location. Device orientation, movement artefact, event detection and algorithm version are integral to the output. Healthy-participant validation may support engineering feasibility but cannot establish symptomatic-population error or patient-important change. Estimated trunk inclination is not direct lumbar flexion, and an acceleration peak is not force or RFD.

For automated chair-rise analysis, validation should include repeated sessions with complete setup replacement; performance across body sizes and disability levels; users who need arms or assistance; agreement for each claimed output; failure detection; and the actual home environment. Separating people, rather than individual repetitions, between training and testing is essential to avoid information leakage.

Inability safety and missingness are outcomes

A test that can be completed by research volunteers is not necessarily feasible for every patient. Piva's large chronic-LBP study explicitly tracked tests not performed. The five-times chair-rise task was not completed or not administered in 10.7% of the 1,006-person denominator, including safety exclusions and tester/participant decisions. That is a useful counterweight to small studies reporting that all included participants completed every trial. [28]

The 2026 EL DORADO cohort reported high chair-rise completion, but eligibility already required safe participation, and the sample included several diagnoses. Different completion percentages therefore cannot be ranked as device performance without accounting for recruitment and stopping criteria. Its median chair-rise time should not be labelled a normal or abnormal boundary. [27]

Do not convert inability into a fabricated maximum time. Record whether the person could rise once, complete all repetitions, use their arms, require physical assistance, stop because of symptoms or stop for another reason. Assisted and unassisted tasks can both provide information, but should be labelled separately. A later transition from inability to completion may be important even when no numeric baseline exists.

Remote protocols should make the chair stable, the area clear and the supervision appropriate to the person's circumstances. A changed aid or arm-use strategy may improve real-world independence while making a direct comparison with an earlier unassisted timing invalid. The software should preserve that trade-off rather than penalize a useful adaptation.

Table 4 Remote assessment and missingness

Do not replace inability with a fabricated maximum time or silently exclude failed recordings.

Prognosis what has actually been shown

Current disability is not future disability

Most chair-rise literature in nonspecific LBP concerns concurrent group differences, relationships with current disability, or measurement properties. Calling a regression variable a predictor does not establish temporal prediction. The 2025 coordination classifier distinguishes current CLBP status from asymptomatic status; the movement-evoked-pain study relates baseline measurements to baseline function. Neither provides a forecast of later disability, recovery or work participation. [9, 19]

Repeated testing after treatment establishes longitudinal change, but does not by itself establish that the baseline score predicts outcome. Responsiveness and prognosis need different designs. A good outcome measure may be a poor predictor, and a strong baseline association can coexist with poor individual calibration.

Falls work and treatment selection

No chair-rise cut-off suitable for forecasting individual falls in nonspecific LBP was established by the direct evidence appraised here. Falls results from general geriatric samples, spinal-surgery populations or combined mobility batteries should not be assigned to a standalone nonspecific-LBP chair-rise test. Retrospective falls and fear of falling are also different endpoints from prospectively recorded falls.

The same restraint applies to return to work. Five successful rises do not establish ability to lift, sustain a shift, commute, or meet a particular job's demands. Work outcomes reflect physical requirements, accommodations, psychosocial factors and the employment setting. Chair rising may be one useful functional observation within a broader assessment, but is not a clearance test.

A movement subgroup or classifier also does not establish which treatment will work. To justify treatment selection, the feature must demonstrate a reproducible treatment–feature interaction or comparable decision evidence, with suitable validation. Observing that patients move differently from controls is insufficient.

Future prognostic studies should measure the chair-rise task before the outcome, specify time horizon, include routine predictors, handle missing tests and censoring, report absolute risk calibration and validate externally. Incremental usefulness must be demonstrated beyond a reliable test and a statistically significant coefficient.

Table 5 Claims a chair rise tool can and cannot support

Practical synthesis, not an individual treatment recommendation.

Practical protocol and software specification

Choose one named primary task and freeze its definition. Record chair height, seat firmness and back/arm supports; footwear; feet; arm position; initial posture; verbal cue; allowed speed; number of repetitions; completion criteria; start and stop events; rest; practice; trial selection and aggregation. A best-of-three score, average-of-two score and single attempt must not share one reference range.

For repeated clinical use, record symptom distribution, current pain, movement-evoked pain, confidence or anticipated difficulty when relevant, aid/assistance, and any reason for incomplete performance. Keep acute flares and recent medication changes visible. For video, record view, frame rate, scale information where needed, device/algorithm version and any manual correction.

Report elapsed time or count first. Add a concise description of assistance and completion. Movement outputs should specify the segment and phase rather than a generic “spinal mobility” label. If power is estimated, display the estimation method and assumptions. If no validated LBP-specific importance threshold exists for that protocol, say so plainly rather than borrowing one from another population.

Quality control should identify an obscured seat-off, incomplete standing, out-of-frame repetitions, unsupported timing endpoints, and changed protocol. The system should retain a failed recording and reason in the audit trail. Clinical improvement cannot be inferred solely from cleaner video capture or better algorithm confidence.

A useful development sequence is: verify timing and counting, quantify between-day error, validate selected kinematic outputs, establish patient-relevant responsiveness, and only then investigate future outcomes. The evidence does not require that every clinic perform laboratory motion analysis. It requires that the claim made for a simple or complex tool match the evidence actually available.

Limitations and conclusion

The direct nonspecific-LBP literature is uneven. Several foundational full texts and some detailed error tables were unavailable through permitted retrieval routes. The original supplement for the 72-biomarker study and the complete tele-assessment PDF were obtained, allowing more exact scrutiny of selected newer claims. This report deliberately retains discrepancies and acquisition gaps rather than filling them with healthy or surgical thresholds.

Chair rising is a useful, feasible component of LBP assessment when its protocol and meaning are clear. It can document task capacity, symptom response and strategy. It should be paired with the patient's priorities and appropriate clinical context, while preserving the boundaries between reliability, detectable change, important change, current classification and genuine prognosis.

Primary study characteristics

The study profiles preserve the population, design, protocol, measurement findings, change interpretation, later outcomes and limitations for each appraised original study. A source can be useful for one question while remaining insufficient for another. Contextual and mixed-population studies are explicitly identified, and related publications are not assumed to represent independent cohorts.

Simmonds 1998

Study and population [2] Direct measurement study. 44 LBP; 48 controls; nonspecific/mechanical, variable duration

Protocol Nine-task battery, twice on two days; 50-ft preferred/fast, 5-min walk, 5 STS among tasks

Measurement and change Original abstract: intertester ICC(1,1)>0.95; day-to-day LBP ICC range 0.59–0.88; averaging selected tasks improved reliability. No patient-anchored MIC in original abstract

Later outcomes and interpretation No later clinical outcome. Original tables unavailable; review entries for same-day STS and 5-min day-to-day reliability conflict with original abstract; withhold contested numbers

Source examined PMID 9836355 abstract; Jakobsson Table 4 comparison. Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable

Smeets 2006

Study and population [3] Direct measurement study. 53 nonspecific CLBP; 50.9% below-knee radiation (not confirmation of radiculopathy); 50-ft analysis n=52

Protocol Same-observer 5–9-day retest; 5MW on 30-m figure-eight; fast 50-ft figure-eight; mean of two 5STS trials; inverse-time analysis for timed tasks

Measurement and change ICC: 5 MW .89; inverse 50-ft .76; inverse 5 STS .91. LoA half-width 82.7 m; time summaries 3.9/7.6 s back-converted at sample mean. Error, not MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation No clinical prognosis. Inverse scale and average-of-two matter; do not apply constant second thresholds across baselines

Source examined Official Maastricht thesis DOI 10.26481/dis.20061208rs, Chapter 8, printed pp 166–173, Table 3; original repository version linked below. Original author repository chapter methods and results inspected; complete journal article unavailable

Original repository version

Andersson 2010

Study and population [4] Longitudinal measurement responsiveness. 198 chronic nonspecific LBP; 10 weeks treatment

Protocol Six physical tasks; global perceived effect anchor

Measurement and change MDC-for-improvement and ROC methods are distinct. Only STS AUC .75 and stairs AUC .72 met .70 criterion; STS ROC improvement 4.1 s versus one-sided detectable improvement 9.8 s; GPE 3–5 unchanged and 6–7 improved

Later outcomes and interpretation Responsiveness, not baseline prognosis. Original author-posted full article available; GPE 3–5 unchanged and 6–7 improved; no universal 4.1 s rule

Source examined PMID 20634779; original author-posted full article now available

Özüdoğru 2023

Study and population [21] Direct clinical reliability and construct validity. 40 analyzed adults with nonspecific chronic LBP, verified in the recovered original article

Protocol Five-times sit-to-stand scored by two assessors one hour apart, with a seven-day repeat; compared with Biodex balance, quadriceps strength, ODI and VAS

Measurement and change Inter-rater and retest ICCs were 0.99; secondary measures were significantly correlated with chair-rise time. No verified patient-anchored MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation Concurrent measurement only. Original article now recovered; MDC computation remains unresolved because the SD input is unclear

Source examined PMID 36376556; original article now recovered. Historical retrieval limitation superseded for current access; MDC computation remains unresolved

Kahraman 2016

Study and population [14] Direct comparison of measurement properties. 38 people with nonspecific LBP; sample confirmed from the review; retest after 48–72 hours

Protocol 30-second chair-stand count versus Balance Master transfer time, rising index and sway velocity

Measurement and change Count ICC 0.94; instrumented-output ICCs 0.62–0.69. Original error table unavailable; no verified MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation No subsequent clinical outcome. The outputs measure different constructs; count reliability does not establish equivalence of movement-quality measures

Source examined PMID 27031182, original abstract; Jakobsson Table 2. Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable

Pourahmadi 2018

Study and population [5] Direct kinematic reliability. 23 people with chronic nonspecific LBP and 23 controls

Protocol Preferred-speed sit-to-stand/stand-to-sit; 10 markers; repeat after 2 hours and 6–8 days

Measurement and change ICC(3,k), SEM and limits of agreement; abstract reports SEM up to 10.17 degrees. No MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation Concurrent group differences only. Results concern averaged kinematic outputs rather than a single timed five-rise test; detailed original tables unavailable

Source examined PMID 29128293, original abstract. Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable

Christe 2016

Study and population [6] Concurrent biomechanical comparison. 10 people with CLBP and minimal/moderate disability; 11 controls

Protocol Multi-segment pelvis, lumbar and thoracic model during chair rise

Measurement and change Smaller sagittal angles and velocities at selected regions. No error or MIC evaluated in this comparison

Later outcomes and interpretation No subsequent outcome. Very small sample; group differences are not causal or treatment-selection evidence

Source examined PMID 27262182, original abstract and institutional metadata. Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable

Christe 2022

Study and population [7] Direct kinematic reliability. 20 people with CLBP and 20 controls; two patient dropouts at each repeat stage

Protocol Five functional tasks; three repetitions except ten pick-ups; same-day markers retained; later setup repeated after 7.1±0.3 days

Measurement and change ICC(2,1); median chair-rise angular-amplitude ICC 0.60; many angular-velocity outputs had poor between-session reliability. Across-task MDC medians of 9.6 degrees and 18.3 degrees/s are not chair-rise MICs

Later outcomes and interpretation No prognosis. Relatively symptomatic sample; output-specific tables and supplements are needed before implementing thresholds

Source examined Complete body, Methods and Results; Table 2 cited by original body; detailed supplement unavailable. Complete article text

Moissenet 2023

Study and population [8] Direct reliability and concurrent discrimination. 30 nonspecific-CLBP participants and 30 controls; 24 patients returned

Protocol One-week retest; five usual 10-m walks; three height-adjusted chair rises

Measurement and change Hip chair-rise ROM: within-session ICC 0.90, between-session 0.57, MDC95 17.6 degrees. Lumbo-pelvic ROM: between-session ICC 0.60, MDC95 11.7 degrees. MDC concerns error, not patient importance

Later outcomes and interpretation No prognosis; four retained combined reliability/discrimination candidates concerned bending. Single centre, many features and study-specific rating bands

Source examined Supplement 3: Patient_BMo 3/Patient_BMo 33, reliability E97/E100 and MDC E97/E100; Supplement 4 protocols. Complete original article and original supplementary workbooks

Sutanto 2025

Study and population [9] Exploratory current-state classifier. 44 people with CLBP and 22 controls; ages 18–55; BMI 18–25; restricted ODI ranges

Protocol Started standing; 43-cm chair; arms crossed; six cycles with seated foot tapping; one end repetition removed

Measurement and change Segmental relative-phase features achieved 93% same-cohort classification; no external validation. No important-change or between-day error study

Later outcomes and interpretation Current CLBP status, not later disability. Modified task and restricted recruitment; model development and assessment used the same cohort; not smartphone validation

Source examined Complete original article, Methods 2.1/2.5 and Results. Complete article text

Knox 2021

Study and population [19] Concurrent association from prospective parent cohort. 230 older adults with CLBP

Protocol Sum of 0–10 pain ratings after repeated chair rise, 6 MWT, stairs; score 0–30

Measurement and change Adjusted associations with LLFDI b−.30 and TUG b.081. No task-specific MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation Baseline analysis; not longitudinal prediction. Aggregate cannot isolate STS/gait effect; parent cohort label does not change temporal order

Source examined Complete original article Methods/Results; Tables 3/4. Complete article text

Simon 2023

Study and population [20] Feasibility/concurrent association. 39 older adults with persistent LBP

Protocol MEPLO task; movement-evoked pain versus self-reported function/usual speed

Measurement and change Safety/feasibility and concurrent adjusted associations. Not a gait-speed MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation Baseline, not future decline. Small older sample; distinct task/scoring methods; no unrestricted remote safety inference

Source examined PMID 36943160; complete PMC BioC body Methods/Results. Complete article text

Piva 2025

Study and population [28] Large descriptive feasibility study. 1,006 participants with CLBP; 999 contributed some clinical examination data

Protocol Supervised comprehensive battery, including 4-m gait, five-rise chair test, 2-minute walk and balance

Measurement and change Tests not done: gait 1.9%, chair rise 10.7%, 2-minute walk 7.4%; timing included preparation and data entry. No reliability or MIC validation

Later outcomes and interpretation No clinical outcome prediction. Safety screening and task-specific denominators; sample means are not normality thresholds

Source examined Complete body, Table 3 and footnote a; Table 4. Complete article text

Ozsoy 2024

Study and population [10] Direct remote measurement. 64 adults with nonspecific CLBP; mean age 41.4; internet and home-space access required

Protocol Best of three attempts with five-minute rests; clinic followed by WhatsApp home assessment within 24 hours; relative present

Measurement and change Between-mode ICC 0.966 (95% CI 0.944–0.979); remote-repeat ICC 0.979 (0.965–0.987); reported SDC95 0.48/0.30 s. No MIC; derivation of the small SEM/SDC values is insufficiently explained

Later outcomes and interpretation No prognosis. Conventional reported-SD/ICC calculation does not reproduce the SEMs; fixed order and digital selection; thresholds withheld

Source examined Publisher PDF page 5, Tables 2/3 visually checked; Methods pages 2–4. Original publisher article and numerical tables visually checked

Staartjes 2019

Study and population [11] Remote feasibility and rater agreement; adjacent population. 121 recruited, 100 eligible with lumbar degeneration; 88 unsupervised results, 64 returned videos, 61 ratable

Protocol Clinic timing compared with family timing and clinician video scoring at home

Measurement and change Correlations with clinic timing 0.94 and 0.90; same-video inter-rater ICC 0.996. No nonspecific-LBP MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation No future clinical outcome. Degenerative spine-care population; same-recording agreement is not patient retest; selective video return

Source examined PMID 30680635, original abstract. Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable

Hanafi 2026

Study and population [25] Remote measurement; adjacent population. People with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression; internet and BankID access required

Protocol Video-call one-leg stand, TUG and 30-second chair stand

Measurement and change Complete original supports remote administration; values deliberately not transferred to nonspecific LBP. No nonspecific-LBP five-rise MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation No clinical prognosis. Specific stenosis population awaiting surgery and a different task duration

Source examined Complete Methods and Results; PMC13355330. Complete article text

Carpino 2020

Study and population [22] Immediate treatment-response context. Preliminary LBP sample

Protocol Chair-rise time and biomechanics before and after manual therapy

Measurement and change Time and movement changes can be dissociated. Not a patient-anchored MIC study

Later outcomes and interpretation No baseline prognostic validation. Preliminary pre–post design is not definitive treatment-efficacy evidence

Source examined Complete body, Methods and Results. Complete article text

Sadeghisani 2021

Study and population [17] Concurrent subgroup comparison. 20 men in a flexion-plus-rotation LBP subgroup and 20 controls

Protocol Height-adjusted chair at 90-degree knee flexion; arms free; comfortable transfers; three-second standing pause; three trials

Measurement and change Subgroup-specific kinematic differences. No MIC

Later outcomes and interpretation Concurrent only. Male-only, movement-system subgroup; no single pattern can be generalized to all LBP

Source examined Complete body, Methods and Table 1. Complete article text

Hansen 2026

Study and population [27] Descriptive multidomain feasibility. 542 secondary-care patients; diagnosis codes: 69% nonspecific LBP, 13% stenosis, 11% disc herniation

Protocol 2-minute walk, five-rise chair test, markerless recordings, sensory tests, self-report and SMS follow-up

Measurement and change High functional-test completion; gait tracking less usable; calibration matured during recruitment. Descriptive medians are not thresholds

Later outcomes and interpretation No validated multidomain prognosis; follow-up demonstrates feasibility. Mixed diagnoses and no complete eligible-population denominator

Source examined Complete body, Methods and Results; Tables 1–3. Complete article text

Search methods and source access

Table 6 Search retrieval and reconciliation

Across the three overlapping slices: 162 unique PubMed IDs and 237 unique Scopus IDs. These are database records, not unique eligible or appraised studies.

Exact executed native queries

Measurement PubMed

("Low Back Pain"[MeSH Terms] OR "low back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR "low-back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR lumbago[Title/Abstract] OR "lumbar pain"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("sit to stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand to sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand-to-sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit to walk"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-walk"[Title/Abstract] OR 5STS[Title/Abstract] OR FTSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 5TSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 30sCST[Title/Abstract] OR "repeated chair"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rising"[Title/Abstract]) AND (reliab*[Title/Abstract] OR valid*[Title/Abstract] OR reproducib*[Title/Abstract] OR psychometr*[Title/Abstract] OR clinimetr*[Title/Abstract] OR agreement[Title/Abstract] OR "measurement error"[Title/Abstract] OR "standard error"[Title/Abstract] OR "minimal detectable"[Title/Abstract] OR "minimum detectable"[Title/Abstract] OR "smallest detectable"[Title/Abstract] OR "minimal important"[Title/Abstract] OR "minimally important"[Title/Abstract] OR "minimum important"[Title/Abstract] OR responsiv*[Title/Abstract] OR interpretabil*[Title/Abstract] OR "floor effect"[Title/Abstract] OR "ceiling effect"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("1800/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "2026/10/02"[Date - Publication])

Measurement Scopus

TITLE-ABS-KEY(("low back pain" OR "low-back pain" OR lumbago OR "lumbar pain") AND ("sit to stand" OR "sit-to-stand" OR "stand to sit" OR "stand-to-sit" OR "chair rise" OR "chair-rise" OR "chair stand" OR "chair-stand" OR "sit to walk" OR "sit-to-walk" OR 5STS OR FTSTS OR 5TSTS OR 30sCST OR "repeated chair" OR "chair rising") AND (reliab* OR valid* OR reproducib* OR psychometr* OR clinimetr* OR agreement OR "measurement error" OR "standard error" OR "minimal detectable" OR "minimum detectable" OR "smallest detectable" OR "minimal important" OR "minimally important" OR "minimum important" OR responsiv* OR interpretabil* OR "floor effect" OR "ceiling effect")) AND PUBYEAR BEF 2027

Prognosis PubMed

("Low Back Pain"[MeSH Terms] OR "low back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR "low-back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR lumbago[Title/Abstract] OR "lumbar pain"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("sit to stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand to sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand-to-sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit to walk"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-walk"[Title/Abstract] OR 5STS[Title/Abstract] OR FTSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 5TSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 30sCST[Title/Abstract] OR "repeated chair"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rising"[Title/Abstract]) AND (prognos*[Title/Abstract] OR predict*[Title/Abstract] OR longitudinal[Title/Abstract] OR prospective[Title/Abstract] OR cohort[Title/Abstract] OR "follow up"[Title/Abstract] OR "follow-up"[Title/Abstract] OR recovery[Title/Abstract] OR deteriorat*[Title/Abstract] OR fall*[Title/Abstract] OR "natural history"[Title/Abstract] OR "return to work"[Title/Abstract] OR discharge[Title/Abstract] OR "risk factor"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("1800/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "2026/10/02"[Date - Publication])

Prognosis Scopus

TITLE-ABS-KEY(("low back pain" OR "low-back pain" OR lumbago OR "lumbar pain") AND ("sit to stand" OR "sit-to-stand" OR "stand to sit" OR "stand-to-sit" OR "chair rise" OR "chair-rise" OR "chair stand" OR "chair-stand" OR "sit to walk" OR "sit-to-walk" OR 5STS OR FTSTS OR 5TSTS OR 30sCST OR "repeated chair" OR "chair rising") AND (prognos* OR predict* OR longitudinal OR prospective OR cohort OR "follow up" OR "follow-up" OR recovery OR deteriorat* OR fall* OR "natural history" OR "return to work" OR discharge OR "risk factor")) AND PUBYEAR BEF 2027

Protocol mechanism technology PubMed

("Low Back Pain"[MeSH Terms] OR "low back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR "low-back pain"[Title/Abstract] OR lumbago[Title/Abstract] OR "lumbar pain"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("sit to stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand to sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "stand-to-sit"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-rise"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair-stand"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit to walk"[Title/Abstract] OR "sit-to-walk"[Title/Abstract] OR 5STS[Title/Abstract] OR FTSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 5TSTS[Title/Abstract] OR 30sCST[Title/Abstract] OR "repeated chair"[Title/Abstract] OR "chair rising"[Title/Abstract]) AND (protocol[Title/Abstract] OR biomechan*[Title/Abstract] OR kinematic*[Title/Abstract] OR kinetic*[Title/Abstract] OR symmetr*[Title/Abstract] OR asymmetr*[Title/Abstract] OR "weight bearing"[Title/Abstract] OR "weight-bearing"[Title/Abstract] OR "ground reaction"[Title/Abstract] OR "force plate"[Title/Abstract] OR "force platform"[Title/Abstract] OR sensor*[Title/Abstract] OR wearable*[Title/Abstract] OR inertial[Title/Abstract] OR acceleromet*[Title/Abstract] OR markerless[Title/Abstract] OR "motion capture"[Title/Abstract] OR camera[Title/Abstract] OR video[Title/Abstract] OR algorithm[Title/Abstract] OR electromyogra*[Title/Abstract] OR activation[Title/Abstract] OR "sampling frequency"[Title/Abstract] OR "filter cutoff"[Title/Abstract]) AND ("1800/01/01"[Date - Publication] : "2026/10/02"[Date - Publication])

Protocol mechanism technology Scopus

TITLE-ABS-KEY(("low back pain" OR "low-back pain" OR lumbago OR "lumbar pain") AND ("sit to stand" OR "sit-to-stand" OR "stand to sit" OR "stand-to-sit" OR "chair rise" OR "chair-rise" OR "chair stand" OR "chair-stand" OR "sit to walk" OR "sit-to-walk" OR 5STS OR FTSTS OR 5TSTS OR 30sCST OR "repeated chair" OR "chair rising") AND (protocol OR biomechan* OR kinematic* OR kinetic* OR symmetr* OR asymmetr* OR "weight bearing" OR "weight-bearing" OR "ground reaction" OR "force plate" OR "force platform" OR sensor* OR wearable* OR inertial OR acceleromet* OR markerless OR "motion capture" OR camera OR video OR algorithm OR electromyogra* OR activation OR "sampling frequency" OR "filter cutoff")) AND PUBYEAR BEF 2027

Coverage reconciliation and source selection

All returned database pages were retrieved through the terminal page. Scopus unique-ID counts matched each provider total. PubMed pages repeatedly returned some records while omitting others; exact-query official NCBI ESearch/EFetch recovered all IDs and records without missing fetches. PubMed BookArticle records were handled where present. Native Scopus queries used publication year before 2027; individual included-source dates were checked against the 2 October cutoff, since issue year alone is not exact date eligibility.

Search slices are overlapping discovery sets. No claim is made that all retrieved records were independently screened. Intensive appraisal prioritized original measurement properties, influential change thresholds, useful clinical protocols, technology validation and prospective clinical outcomes. The earlier low-back-pain landscape search, review references and bounded citation chasing supplemented native queries.

Forward citations of the gait review were retrieved from OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar (93 and 85 records respectively); backward references of the STS review returned 26 OpenAlex records, with a Semantic Scholar rate-limit failure. These were bounded discovery calls, not exhaustive citation networks. Forward discovery from the 2019 capacity review was also inspected (47 OpenAlex records; Semantic Scholar rate limit). Relevant new studies were verified at their primary sources.

Original full articles were sought through bibliographic services, publishers and lawful repositories. Some subscription originals remained abstract-only. Complete text, partial chapter inspection, original abstracts and corrections remain distinguished. One changed-content retrieval was resolved by obtaining the complete article again.

Key original supplements retrieved: Moissenet 2023 Supplementary Information 1 (file guide), Supplementary Information 3 (full numerical properties workbook) and Supplementary Information 4 (task protocols). Ozsoy/Uz 2024 publisher PDF Tables 2–3 were visually verified. The Fernandes 2016 corrigendum remains unresolved; its 2015 thresholds are withheld.

Related source and validation needs

These source acquisition priorities include foundational studies shared across the walking and chair rise evidence base.

• Obtain Simmonds 1998 original tables before disputed reliability/SDC values are used

• Andersson’s original anchor and ROC/error tables are now available. Keep ROC improvement of 4.1 s distinct from one-sided detectable improvement of 9.8 s; no universal MIC is established.

• Obtain Kahraman’s original full tables for absolute-error appraisal. Özüdoğru’s article is now available, but the SD input and SEM/MDC derivation still require clarification.

• Gait: obtain Fernandes’s original 2015 numerical tables; the recovered 2016 corrigendum changes an author’s name only.

• Kinematics: obtain exact Christe 2022 supplementary task/output tables before individual threshold use

References

References are numbered in first citation order. Source descriptions identify the material examined and are not study quality ratings. Links identify the original publication or the explicitly named original source version.

1. Jakobsson M, Gutke A, Mokkink LB, Smeets R, Lundberg M. Level of Evidence for Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of Physical Capacity Tasks Designed to Assess Functioning in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Using the COSMIN Standards. Physical therapy. 2019;99(4):457-477. DOI 10.1093/ptj/pzy159 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-418578aae366 Jakobsson M 2019

2. Simmonds MJ, Olson SL, Jones S, Hussein T, Lee CE, Novy D et al. Psychometric characteristics and clinical usefulness of physical performance tests in patients with low back pain. Spine. 1998;23(22):2412-21. DOI 10.1097/00007632-199811150-00011 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-e0690127ab0a Simmonds MJ 1998

3. Smeets RJ, Hijdra HJ, Kester AD, Hitters MW, Knottnerus JA. The usability of six physical performance tasks in a rehabilitation population with chronic low back pain. Clinical rehabilitation. 2006;20(11):989-97. DOI 10.1177/0269215506070698 Source examined: Original author repository chapter methods and results inspected; complete journal article unavailable.

Source note: SRC-606df2e53a98 Smeets RJ 2006

4. Andersson EI, Lin CC, Smeets RJ. Performance tests in people with chronic low back pain: responsiveness and minimal clinically important change. Spine. 2010;35(26):E1559-63. DOI 10.1097/brs.0b013e3181cea12e Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-9e89524f8f98 Andersson EI 2010

5. Pourahmadi MR, Ebrahimi Takamjani I, Jaberzadeh S, Sarrafzadeh J, Sanjari MA, Bagheri R et al. Test-retest reliability of sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit analysis in people with and without chronic non-specific low back pain. Musculoskeletal science & practice. 2018;35:95-104. DOI 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.11.001 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-6735f5dfa27c Pourahmadi MR 2018

6. Christe G, Redhead L, Legrand T, Jolles BM, Favre J. Multi-segment analysis of spinal kinematics during sit-to-stand in patients with chronic low back pain. Journal of biomechanics. 2016;49(10):2060-2067. DOI 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.05.015 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-57fd0e74c5cd Christe G 2016

7. Christe G, Jolles BM, Favre J. Between/within-session reliability of spinal kinematic and lumbar muscle activity measures in patients with chronic low back pain and asymptomatic individuals. Gait & posture. 2022;95:100-108. DOI 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2022.04.008 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-1c25614d3cf6 Christe G 2022

8. Moissenet F, Armand S, Genevay S. Measurement properties of 72 movement biomarkers aiming to discriminate non‑specific chronic low back pain patients from an asymptomatic population. Scientific reports. 2023;13(1):6483. DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-33504-5 Source examined: Complete original article and original supplementary workbooks.

Source note: SRC-de0028260239 Moissenet F 2023

9. Sutanto D, Ho CY, Wong SHS, Pranata A, Yang Y. Difference in movement coordination and variability during Five-Repetition Sit-to-Stand between people with and without Chronic Low back pain. Journal of biomechanics. 2025;181:112531. DOI 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2025.112531 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-3bb000ca5056 Sutanto D 2025

10. Ozsoy I, Uz AL. Reliability of tele-assessment of five repetition sit to stand and timed up and go tests in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain. Discover Health Systems. 2024;3:34. DOI 10.1007/s44250-024-00101-w Source examined: Original publisher article and numerical tables visually checked.

Source note: SRC-504ac0a80df8 Ozsoy I 2024

11. Staartjes VE, Beusekamp F, Schröder ML. Can objective functional impairment in lumbar degenerative disease be reliably assessed at home using the five-repetition sit-to-stand test? A prospective study. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society. 2019;28(4):665-673. DOI 10.1007/s00586-019-05897-3 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-74c51b819b52 Staartjes VE 2019

12. Novy DM, Simmonds MJ, Lee CE. Physical performance tasks: what are the underlying constructs? Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2002;83(1):44-7. DOI 10.1053/apmr.2002.27397 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-4a4afabd0bed Novy DM 2002

13. Lee CE, Simmonds MJ, Novy DM, Jones S. Self-reports and clinician-measured physical function among patients with low back pain: a comparison. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 2001;82(2):227-31. DOI 10.1053/apmr.2001.18214 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-74ab4e5bb253 Lee CE 2001

14. Kahraman T, Ozcan Kahraman B, Salik Sengul Y, Kalemci O. Assessment of sit-to-stand movement in nonspecific low back pain: a comparison study for psychometric properties of field-based and laboratory-based methods. International journal of rehabilitation research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue internationale de recherches de readaptation. 2016;39(2):165-70. DOI 10.1097/mrr.0000000000000164 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-a44d0d452f18 Kahraman T 2016

15. Jakobsson M, Gutke A, Mokkink LB, Smeets R, Lundberg M. Author Response to Denteneer et al. Physical therapy. 2020;100(6):1036-1037. DOI 10.1093/ptj/pzaa040 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-cb48b9ab5ffc Jakobsson M 2020

16. Staartjes VE, Schröder ML. The five-repetition sit-to-stand test: evaluation of a simple and objective tool for the assessment of degenerative pathologies of the lumbar spine. Journal of neurosurgery. Spine. 2018;29(4):380-387. DOI 10.3171/2018.2.spine171416 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-e7ebe8de8ae2 Staartjes VE 2018

17. Sadeghisani M, Dehghan Manshadi F, Khademi Kalantari K, Karimi MT, Azimi H, Aghazadeh A. Kinematics of the Lumbar Spine and Hip Joints in People with Persistent Low Back Pain during Sit to Stand and Stand to Sit Activities. Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 2021;35:165. DOI 10.47176/mjiri.35.165 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-d3aeedeb6285 Sadeghisani M 2021

18. Matheve T, Janssens L, Goossens N, Danneels L, Willems T, Van Oosterwijck J et al. The Relationship Between Pain-Related Psychological Factors and Maximal Physical Performance in Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The journal of pain. 2022;23(12):2036-2051. DOI 10.1016/j.jpain.2022.08.001 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-4dcdcbbbd059 Matheve T 2022

19. Knox PJ, Simon CB, Pohlig RT, Pugliese JM, Coyle PC, Sions JM et al. A Standardized Assessment of Movement-evoked Pain Ratings Is Associated With Functional Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain. The Clinical journal of pain. 2021;38(4):241-249. DOI 10.1097/ajp.0000000000001016 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-719f60899a73 Knox PJ 2021

20. Simon CB, Hicks GE, Pieper CF, Byers Kraus V, Keefe FJ, Colón-Emeric C. A Novel Movement-Evoked Pain Provocation Test for Older Adults With Persistent Low Back Pain: Safety, Feasibility, and Associations With Self-reported Physical Function and Usual Gait Speed. The Clinical journal of pain. 2023;39(4):166-174. DOI 10.1097/ajp.0000000000001101 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-c030d3e9807f Simon CB 2023

21. Özüdoğru A, Canlı M, Ceylan İ, Kuzu Ş, Alkan H, Karaçay BÇ. Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test in people with non-specific chronic low back pain-a cross-sectional test-retest reliability study. Irish journal of medical science. 2023;192(4):1903-1908. DOI 10.1007/s11845-022-03223-3 Source examined: Original abstract; repository manuscript unavailable without login.

Source note: SRC-e7604bbb8c75 Ozudogru A 2023

22. Carpino G, Tran S, Currie S, Enebo B, Davidson BS, Howarth SJ. Does manual therapy affect functional and biomechanical outcomes of a sit-to-stand task in a population with low back pain? A preliminary analysis. Chiropractic & manual therapies. 2020;28(1):5. DOI 10.1186/s12998-019-0290-7 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-88e7303620ac Carpino G 2020

23. Sedrez JA, Mesquita PV, Gelain GM, Candotti CT. Kinematic Characteristics of Sit-to-Stand Movements in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. 2019;42(7):532-540. DOI 10.1016/j.jmpt.2018.12.004 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-d8f78a3c9ed7 Sedrez JA 2019

24. Shum GL, Crosbie J, Lee RY. Effect of low back pain on the kinematics and joint coordination of the lumbar spine and hip during sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit. Spine. 2005;30(17):1998-2004. DOI 10.1097/01.brs.0000176195.16128.27 Source examined: Original abstract or bibliographic record only; complete numerical tables unavailable.

Source note: SRC-1b143de69709 Shum GL 2005

25. Hanafi R, Ernest C, Karlsson E, Kemani MK, Nijs J, Lundberg M et al. Validity and reliability of remote administration of the one-leg stand, timed up and go and 30-second sit-to-stand via video call in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression surgery. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2026;27(1):594. DOI 10.1186/s12891-026-10149-9 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-4e5f6003212c Hanafi R 2026

26. Quirk DA, Johnson ME, Anderson DE, Smuck M, Sun R, Matthew R et al. Biomechanical Phenotyping of Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for BACPAC. Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.). 2023;24(Suppl 1):S48-S60. DOI 10.1093/pm/pnac163 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-e346cdccc99b Quirk DA 2023

27. Hansen A, Harsted S, Nim C, O'Sullivan K, O'Neill S. Integrated disability evaluation in low back pain: feasibility and multidomain profiling from the EL DORADO cohort. Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences. 2026;7:1731260. DOI 10.3389/fresc.2026.1731260 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-ce6f19f13df1 Hansen A 2026

28. Piva SR, Alfikri Z, Anderst W, Bell KM, Carlesso C, Darwin J et al. Feasibility of Physical Exam and Performance-Based Tests in Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Descriptive Study. JOR spine. 2025;8(3):e70096. DOI 10.1002/jsp2.70096 Source examined: Complete article text.

Source note: SRC-440cc699ea82 Piva SR 2025