ArticleSpine deformity2026
Age and in-brace Cobb angle predict brace failure in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative clinical performance of robotic-assisted systems in spinal deformity surgery: focus on perioperative outcomes and pedicle screw accuracy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Non-coding regulatory variants in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis risk and pathogenesis.Communications biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to identify independent risk factors for brace treatment failure, examine the correlation between initial in-brace Cobb angle and curve progression, and assess the relationships among age, curve type, initial in-brace Cobb angle, and treatment success.
methodsEighty consecutive patients (76 girls and 4 boys; mean age: 12.0 ± 1.2 years) commenced treatment with an underarm brace and were followed for a minimum of 2 years after brace initiation. Brace treatment failure was defined as a final Cobb angle of ≥ 50°, surgery, or curve progression ≥ 6°. A spinal surgeon evaluated standing long-cassette antero-posterior radiographs the pre-treatment, initial in-brace, and final follow-up time points. Multivariate analysis was conducted to classify patients into the bracing success and failure groups. We employed receiving operator characteristic analysis to determine cut-off values based on age and initial in-brace Cobb angle.
resultsThe cohort of 80 patients were followed for a mean of 3.1 ± 1.2 years. Overall success rate was 62%, with 19 patients requiring surgery and 30 experiencing bracing failure. Bracing success cases exhibited significantly lower pre-treatment Cobb angle (29.1° vs. 31.7°; P = 0.038), lower initial in-brace Cobb angle (15.5° vs. 21.0°; P < 0.001), and higher in-brace correction rate (48.6% vs. 32.9%; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified younger age (+ 1 year, odds ratio 0.44; P = 0.006) and higher initial in-brace Cobb angle (+ 10°, odds ratio 5.0; P = 0.009) as independent predictors of treatment failure, with cut-off values of 12 years and 16°, respectively.
conclusionFor patients aged ≥ 12 years, controlling Cobb angle to < 16° at the initial underarm brace fitting may prevent significant curve progression and reduce the likelihood of surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40944882What 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.