SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2014
Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review.
Synthesis in 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, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Philippine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Periodic Health Examination: Screening for Musculoskeletal Disorders.Acta medica Philippina · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a Primary Health Care Scoliosis Screening Program: A 9-Year Follow-Up Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Three-dimensional markerless surface topography approach with convolutional neural networks for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis screening.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prevalence of anisometropia and influencing factors among school-age children in Nantong, China: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- No Recommendation Is (at Least Presently) the Best Recommendation: An Updating Quality Appraisal of Recommendations on Screening for Scoliosis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Screening for scoliosis - New recommendations, old dilemmas, no straight solutions.World journal of orthopedics · 2020Review
- Mapping the evidence of experiences related to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a scoping review protocol.BMJ open · 2019Article
- 2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth.Scoliosis and spinal disorders · 2018Review
- A Study to Determine the Frequency Rate of Scoliosis Disorder and Compare the Anthropometric Characteristics of Normal versus the Scoliosis Diagnosed Students.Global journal of health science · 2016Article
- Does School Screening Affect Scoliosis Curve Magnitude at Presentation to a Pediatric Orthopedic Clinic?Spine deformityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRecommendations addressing school screening for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis are contradictory. Consequently a critical evaluation of the methodological quality of available systematic reviews, including those upon which these recommendations are based, was conducted.
methodsArticles meeting the minimal criteria to be considered a systematic review were included for a best evidence synthesis, umbrella review of secondary studies. The primary outcome measure was "any recommendation addressing the continuation, or not, of school screening programs". Multiple general bibliographic databases, guideline registries, as well as websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology of included reviews. Venn diagrams were created to examine potential overlaps across included papers within different reviews.
resultsSix reviews undertaken between 2002 and 2011, scored as moderate to low quality, were included. The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening was found to be based on an outdated (2004) low-quality review, whilst two higher quality and more recent (2009 and 2010) reviews support the continuation of school screening programs.
conclusionsAs the existing recommendations supporting screening are based on moderate quality evidence whilst the recommendations against screening are based on low-quality evidence, the latter recommendations appear to be both unconvincing and methodologically invalid.
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.