Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
On mobility and gait in scoliosis patients: a comparison of conventional and 3D-printed braces during an instrumented timed-up and go test.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04282408 (Experimental Evaluation of Back Braces for the Treatment of Spinal Deformity Produced With 3D Printing Technology), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Experimental Evaluation of Back Braces for the Treatment of Spinal Deformity Produced With 3D Printing Technology
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Interface Pressure Distribution and Range of Motion in a Mesh-Structure 3D-Printed Lumbar Brace.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Printing in Pediatric Orthopaedics: Cost Analysis and Emerging Applications.Journal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2026Review
- Deep learning based screening and regular assessment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using wearable IMU sensors.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Wearable Devices in Scoliosis Treatment: A Scoping Review of Innovations and Challenges.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSpinal orthoses are the most viable conservative treatment for scoliosis, and additive manufacturing techniques have shown huge perspective in producing patient-specific braces, reducing material waste, and production times. This pilot study aimed at determining whether 3D-printed braces could induce advantages or disadvantages compared to conventional braces in terms of mobility and gait, and at quantitatively evaluating the effects of braces on mobility and gait.
methodsTen participants were included in the study, eight with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and two with osteogenesis imperfecta. Participants were asked to perform Timed-Up and Go (TUG) tests wearing a triaxial accelerometer under three conditions: unbraced, wearing a conventional (i.e., thermoformed) brace, and wearing a 3D-printed brace. After segmenting each TUG test in sub-phases, metrics quantifying gait and mobility were computed, and Friedman tests among all conditions were performed.
resultsNo significant differences in scoliotic patients mobility and gait between conventional and 3D-printed brace conditions were found, potentially suggesting that 3D-printed braces are as effective as conventional ones. Conversely, Stand flexion amplitude and Sit extension amplitude were lower in both conventional and 3D-printed brace conditions compared to the unbraced, meaning that braces limited the trunk range of motion. As for gait parameters, no significant differences in Walk Cadence and Walk Velocity among the three conditions were found, indicating that braces did not affect gait, at least during TUG tests.
trial registrationThe study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (Study ID NCT04282408, Date of Registration February 11th, 2020).
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.