Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32321200›Full record

ArticleAsian spine journal2021

Efficacy of Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Versus Computer-Aided Design and Finite Element Modeling Technologies in Brace Management of Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Narrative Review.

Shahrbanoo Bidari, Mojtaba Kamyab, Hassan Ghandhari, Amin Komeili

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian spine journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Finite element analysis in brace treatment on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2022
    Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Shahrbanoo BidariDepartment of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mojtaba KamyabDepartment of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hassan GhandhariBone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amin KomeiliMechanical Engineering Group, School of Engineering, University of Guelph, Geulph, Canada.
Iran University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficiency and design quality of scoliosis braces produced by the conventional casting method depends highly on the orthotist's experience. Recently, advanced engineering techniques have been used with the aim of improving the quality of brace design and associated clinical outcomes. Numerically controlled machine tools have provided enormous opportunities for reducing the manufacturing time and saving material. However, the effectiveness of computer-aided brace manufacturing for scoliosis curve improvement is controversial. This narrative review is aimed at comparing the efficacy of braces made by the conventional method with those made by two computer-aided methods: computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM), and computer-aided design and finite element modeling (CAD-FEM). The comparison was performed on scoliosis parameters in coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes. Scientific databases were searched, and 11 studies were selected for this review. Because of the diversity of study designs, it was not possible to decisively conclude which brace-manufacturing method is most effective. Similar effectiveness in curve correction was found in the coronal plane for braces made by using advanced manufacturing and conventional methods. In the sagittal plane, modern braces seem to be more effective than traditional braces, but there is an ongoing debate among clinicians, about which CAD-CAM and CAD-FEM brace provides a better treatment outcome. The relative effectiveness of modern and conventional methods in correcting deformities in the transverse plane is also a controversial subject. Overall, advanced engineering design and production methods can be proposed as time- and cost-efficient approaches for scoliosis management. However, there is insufficient evidence yet to conclude that CAD-CAM, and CAD-FEM methods provide significantly better clinical outcomes than those of conventional methods in the treatment of scoliosis curve. Moreover, for some factors, such as molding and the patient's posture during the data acquisition, in brace curve-correction plan, the orthotist's experience and scoliosis curve flexibility should be explored to confidently compare the outcomes of conventional, CAD-CAM, and CAD-FEM methods.

Indexed as

Computer-aided designComputer-aided design and finite element modelingConventional methodsScoliosisSpinal bracesSpine

Identifiers

PMID32321200
PMCPMC8055460
OpenAlexW3017231415

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.