Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26279671›Full record

ArticleScoliosis2015

Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art.

Fabio Zaina, Michele Romano, Patrick Knott, Jean Claude de Mauroy, Theodoros B Grivas, Tomasz Kotwicki, Toru Maruyama, Joseph O'Brien, Manuel Rigo, Stefano Negrini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scoliosis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Monitoring curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, assessment of the diagnostic performance of rasterstereography in brace-treated and untreated patients.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 · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fabio ZainaISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), Via Roberto Bellarmino 13/1 20141, Milan, Italy ; Italian Scoliosi Study Group (GSS), Vigevano, Italy.
Michele RomanoISICO (Italian Scientific Spine Institute), Via Roberto Bellarmino 13/1 20141, Milan, Italy ; Italian Scoliosi Study Group (GSS), Vigevano, Italy.
Patrick KnottRosalind Franklin Hospital, Chicago, IL USA.
Jean Claude de MauroyClinique du Park, Lyon, France.
Theodoros B Grivas"Tsaneio" General Hospital of Piraeus, Piraeus, Greece.
Tomasz KotwickiDepartment of Pediatric Orthopaedics, University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland.
Toru MaruyamaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saitama Medical Centre, Saitama Medical University, Kawagoe, Saitama Japan.
Joseph O'BrienNational Scoliosis Foundation, Boston, USA.
Manuel RigoQuera Salvà Institut, Barcelona, Spain.
Stefano NegriniDeparment of Clinical and Experimental Sciences, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy ; IRCCS Fondazione Don Gnocchi, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation was demonstrated by two RCTs for bracing, and one for scoliosis-specific exercises provided by a physical therapist. It is difficult to design strong studies in this field due to the long time needed for follow up and the challenge of recruiting patients and families willing to be involved in the decision process. Nevertheless, the main methodological errors are not related to the study design but rather on the way it is performed, which very frequently affects the reliability of results. The most common errors are: selection bias, with many studies including functional rather than a true structural scoliosis; inappropriate outcome measures, utilizing parameters not related to scoliosis progression or quality of life; inappropriate follow up, reporting only immediate results and not addressing end of growth results; an incorrect interpretation of findings, with an overestimation of results; and missing the evaluation of skeletal maturity, without which results cannot be considered stable. Being aware of these errors is extremely important both for authors and for readers in order to avoid questionable practices based on inconclusive studies that could harm patients.

Identifiers

PMID26279671
PMCPMC4537531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.