ArticleScientific reports2024
The efficacy of bracing in the treatment of progressive early-onset scoliosis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Casting, bracing and surgery: A comparative review of treatment approaches for early onset scoliosis.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2026Review
- Effects of Structured Physical Therapy on Spinal Alignment in Idiopathic Scoliosis: A 12-Month Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Serial Casting for Early-Onset Scoliosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- One Year Results of the Randomized BiPOWR Trial Comparing the Spring Distraction System (SDS) and the One Way Self-Expanding Rod (OWSER) for the Correction of Neuromuscular and Syndromic Early Onset Scoliosis.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Serial casting as one of the applications to treat early-onset scoliosis has been reported efficiently to improve deformity, but no report has focused on the efficacy of braces in the treatment of congenital early-onset scoliosis and comparison with progressive idiopathic early-onset scoliosis. Patients with progressive EOS treated with braces in our institution with a minimum of 4 years follow-up were reviewed. Two groups according to the etiological diagnosis were analyzed and compared: the congenital scoliosis (CS) group and idiopathic scoliosis (IS) group. The success cases and the failure cases were also compared. 27 patients with an average main Cobb angle of 38.19° (20-55) underwent initial bracing at an average age of 55.7 months (24-108), the average follow-up time was 76.19 months (49-117). In IS group the main Cobb angle was corrected to 18.69 ± 12.06° (48.61%) following the first bracing; the final Cobb angle was 23.08 ± 22.15°(38.76%) after brace removal. In CS group the main Cobb angle was corrected to 33.93 ± 10.31°(17.1%) following the first bracing and 37.93 ± 14.74°(3.53%) after brace removal. Both coronal chest width and T1-T12 height increased dramatically from pre-bracing to the last follow-up. Patients diagnosed as IS tended to have a better result in main Cobb angle correction than that of CS (P = 0.049). By the time of last follow-up, 8 patients had undergone surgery, and the operation time was postponed by 68.88 ± 26.43 months. For patients with progressive early-onset scoliosis, bracing is an efficient nonsurgical alternative to casting, and some of them can be cured; if not, eventual surgical intervention can be delayed for a period of time without restrictions on the thoracic cavity.
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.