Observational studySpine deformity2025
Pain in individuals with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: prevalence and association with physical function and psychosocial well-being using patient-reported outcome measures.
Observational study in Spine deformity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeThis study addressed conflicting evidence regarding pain in adolescents with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) by assessing its prevalence and consequences on physical function, and psychosocial well-being in our patients.
methods95 patients with AIS participated in a cross-sectional, observational study. Patient information, clinical and radiographic measures were collected. Participants completed four pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs) along with physical function and psychosocial PROs. Means, standard deviations (SD), interquartile ranges (IQR), and ceiling/floor percentages were calculated for each pain-related PRO. Pain prevalence was defined as percentage of participants exceeding one SD and percentage of participants above two SD of published normative values. Correlations assessed associations between pain-PRO scores and scores on other study measures. Differences in PRO scores between High Pain (HP) and Remaining Cohort (RC) groups, established through interquartile thresholds, were assessed via ANOVA and Cohen's d.
resultsCohort mean age was 14.1 ± 1.7 years, and mean curve magnitude of primary curve was 33 ± 13°. Pain prevalence ranged from 1 to 37% depending on the pain-related PRO. HP groups scored worse on physical function and psychosocial PROs than RC, but no differences between the groups were found for clinical measures.
conclusionRelationships among pain, physical function, psychosocial well-being PRO scores, and clinical measures were established but causality could not be demonstrated. Most patients did not report pain. HP patients scored lower on physical function and psychosocial well-being PROs. HP threshold values can be used to identify HP patients so that interventions to reduce pain can be incorporated into their treatment plan.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40810780What 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.