SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Comparative efficacy of conservative interventions for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Application of Digital Health Technologies in Scoliosis Rehabilitation: Systematic Review Based on the Technology Classification Framework.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy of different scoliosis-specific exercise protocols on cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Application of Schroth exercise therapy in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of exercise therapy on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in mild to moderate: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Radiographic and perceptual outcomes of shoulder imbalance in AIS: bracing alone versus bracing with Schroth methods.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Agreement of MyotonPRO Measurements Across Standing and Prone Positions in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Radiographic outcomes of stick-assisted manipulation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a retrospective study of 57 patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Optimal exercise prescription parameters in Schroth training for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Biomechanical characteristics and therapeutic effects of Traditional Chinese Medicine manual therapy in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Brace Dose in Scoliosis: Measurement, Monitoring, and Clinical Decision-Making-A Narrative Review.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
- The traditional Chinese medicine manipulation combined with Schroth exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is a prevalent spinal disorder, and the efficacy of conservative interventions for AIS remains unclear. This study aimed to identify the comparative efficacy of all available conservative interventions for AIS.
methodsNine databases were searched from their inception to February 2024 for randomized controlled trials comparing conservative interventions for AIS. Paired reviewers independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and assessed certainty of the evidence. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed by DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. Network meta-analysis within the frequentist framework was conducted by R package netmeta, and network plots were generated by the network plot command in Stata.
resultsWe identified 3903 citations, of which 54 trials including 3984 participants were included in our review. All subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with minimal interventions. Brace plus physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE, mean difference (MD): 4.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56 to 9.04, moderate certainty), manual therapy plus PSSE (MD: 5.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 9.43, moderate certainty), and manual therapy plus mind-body exercise (MD: 5.14, 95% CI: 1.25 to 9.04, moderate certainty) could be intermediately effective in improving Cobb angle of patients with AIS at post-interventions. Although brace alone (MD: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.14, high certainty) could be the intermediate effective intervention in preventing scoliosis progression, moderate to high certainty evidence showed that brace alone and PSSE alone probably have little or no difference in improving Cobb angle, function, mental health, self-image, angle of trunk rotation (ATR), or satisfaction of patients with AIS compared to minimal interventions. There was no evidence on the follow-up effects of conservative interventions for AIS. We did not identify serious adverse events for any included conservative interventions.
conclusionsBrace plus PSSE, manual therapy plus PSSE, and manual therapy plus mind-body exercise could provide short-term effects in improving Cobb angle of patients with AIS. The evidence of brace alone and PSSE alone for managing AIS is still not robust. Our findings are useful for decision-making in clinical practice, as we presented the most comprehensive evidence regarding all available conservative interventions for AIS. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024521298.
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.