Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32035480›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020

A systematic literature review of spinal brace/orthosis treatment for adults with scoliosis between 1967 and 2018: clinical outcomes and harms data.

Jeb McAviney, Johanna Mee, Azharuddin Fazalbhoy, Juan Du Plessis, Benjamin T Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Spinal Deformities and Advancement in Corrective Orthoses.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  14. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeb McAvineySydney Scoliosis Clinic, Kirk Place, Level 5, Suite 5.08, 15 Kensington St, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia.
Johanna MeeMelbourne Scoliosis Clinic, Ground Floor, Suite 3, 492 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Azharuddin FazalbhoyMelbourne Scoliosis Clinic, Ground Floor, Suite 3, 492 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8331-4835
Juan Du PlessisSydney Scoliosis Clinic, Kirk Place, Level 5, Suite 5.08, 15 Kensington St, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia.
Benjamin T BrownSydney Scoliosis Clinic, Kirk Place, Level 5, Suite 5.08, 15 Kensington St, Kogarah, NSW, 2217, Australia. benjamin.brown@mq.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-8815
Melbourne Clinic · AUKensington Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a paucity of literature regarding the conservative management of adult scoliosis. The authors review and summarize the literature from 1967 to 2018 on the clinical outcomes of spinal brace/orthosis use in this subgroup of the population.

methodsCINAHL, Embase, CENTRAL, PubMed and PEDro were searched from database inception to the 30th of October, 2018. A combination of medical subject heading terms and keywords pertaining to three core concepts (adult, scoliosis, and braces/orthoses) were used in the search. Studies were included if A) clinical outcomes were collected from B) participants ≥18 years C) receiving spinal brace/orthosis treatment for D) primary degenerative (de novo) scoliosis or progressive idiopathic scoliosis. A step-wise screening process was employed which involved a title and abstract screen for relevancy followed by a full text eligibility appraisal by two authors. Data were extracted, and a risk of bias assessment was performed on the included cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Given the overall level and quality of the available evidence, conclusions were drawn based on a qualitative summary of the evidence.

resultsTen studies (four case reports and six cohort studies) were included which detailed the clinical outcomes of soft (2 studies) or rigid bracing (8 studies), used as a standalone therapy or in combination with physiotherapy/rehabilitation, in 339 adults with various types of scoliosis. Most studies included female participants only. Commonly reported outcomes were pain (7 studies), function (3 studies) and Cobb angles (3 studies), with follow-up times ranging from 2 days to 17 years. Brace wear prescriptions ranged from 2 to 23 h per day, and there was mixed brace-compliance reported. Most studies reported modest or significant reduction in pain and improvement in function at follow-up. There were mixed findings with regards to Cobb angle changes in response to bracing. Participants from one study noted discomfort associated with bracing. Each of the six cohort studies demonstrated a high risk of bias.

conclusionThere is evidence to suggest that spinal brace/orthosis treatment may have a positive short - medium term influence on pain and function in adults with either progressive primary (de novo) degenerative scoliosis or progressive idiopathic scoliosis. At this point in time the evidence is of low quality and has been focused primarily on female patients with thoracolumbar and lumbar curves. More granular statements regarding the efficacy of different brace types or manufacturers, or the effect of this therapy on different curve types cannot be determined based on the current literature. Properly constructed prospective trials are required to better understand the efficacy of bracing in adult scoliosis.

Indexed as

Orthotic DevicesAdultHumansScoliosisAdultBracesPainScoliosisTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID32035480
PMCPMC7007692
OpenAlexW3006635338

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.