ArticleAsian spine journal2025
Long-term follow-up reveals non-utility of nonsurgical management in moderate adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a comprehensive meta-analysis.
Article in Asian spine journal, 2025. 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.
- A retrospective case-series of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients with 5 to 15 years follow-up after segmental pedicle screw instrumentation.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Equating patient-reported outcomes: developing a psychometric crosswalk between Scoliosis Quality of Life Index (SQLI) and Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22r) to support long-term follow-up research in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- Long-Term Management of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis in Adulthood: Clinical Challenges and Progress During the Critical Period of Pregnancy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Outcomes of high-compliance bracing in patients with severe adolescent idiopathic scoliosis declining operative intervention.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Early Brace Treatment: The New Standard for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis?JB & JS open accessArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes of conservative management of moderate adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), focusing on long-term curve behavior, surgical rates, patient-reported outcomes, and the influence of follow-up duration. A comprehensive literature search was conducted adhering to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Statistical analyses, using Review Manager, encompassed mean differences, risk ratios, pooled incidences, and random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The outcome measures were radiographic curve progression, percentage of patients with significant (>5°) progression, surgery rates, sagittal profile changes, back pain rates, quality of life scales, and functional outcomes. Thirteen studies involving 1,492 patients with AIS curves within 30°-45°, treated conservatively, with a minimum 10-year follow-up, were included. At 20+ years of follow-up (mean age, 34.5 years), curves worsened by an average of -5.69° (95% confidence interval [CI], -11.66 to 0.29). At 25+ years of follow-up (mean age, 49.8 years), curves worsened by an average of -14.32° (95% CI, -20.14 to -8.50). The incidence of significant progression was 35.68% (95% CI, 22.85 to 48.50). The surgery rate was 14.20% (95% CI, 0.87 to 27.53). Sagittal alignment (thoracic kyphosis and lumbar lordosis) remained within normal ranges at the final follow-up, with no significant changes from baseline. Back pain rate was 63.35% (95% CI, 38.36 to 88.34). These findings highlight the alarming incidence of curve progression and pain in conservatively managed AIS patients. A critical re-evaluation of conservative versus operative indications is imperative to mitigate long-term impacts and improve outcomes for this population.
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.