SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Measurement properties of the Spinal Appearance Questionnaire in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Clinical study on the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis by balanced jar therapy with flexible corrective appropriate technology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence and associated factors of multi-ethnic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in Longlin, Southwestern China: a school-based cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScoliosis is defined as a three-dimensional deformity of the spine characterized by lateral tilt and axial rotation of the vertebrae. Its magnitude in the frontal plane is identified by a Cobb angle greater than 10
methodsMedline (PubMed), CINAHL, EMBASE, Science Direct, PsycINFO and WorldWideScience.org databases were used for screening studies until July 16, 2022. In this study, records on the development, evaluation and translation of the SAQ instrument in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis were included. In addition, two independent reviewers defined whether the studies were eligible and analyzed their psychometric properties of internal consistency, reliability, content validity, cross-cultural validity, construct validity and structural validity, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). The modified GRADE was applied for evidence synthesis.
resultsA total of 95 articles were selected by title and abstract. After removing duplicates and reading and searching the references, a total of 13 studies were included in this review. The original version of the SAQ was described in English, and the instrument was translated into Polish, Canadian French, Simplified Chinese, Spanish (Europe), Danish, Traditional Chinese, Portuguese (Brazil), Korean, German, Turkish and Persian. The evidence was moderate for construct validity, low for internal consistency, and very low for reliability and cross-cultural validity; the content and structural validity properties did not present minimum data for classification.
conclusionThe quality of the evidence regarding the clinimetric properties of the SAQ instrument in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis was low due to the absence of clinimetric properties or dubious methodological quality. However, for clinical practice and research, we recommend the use of the instrument to assess the self-perception of the spine in adolescents. For future translations and adaptations, we recommend the use of the COSMIN guidelines.
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.