ArticleInternational journal of spine surgery2025
Vertebral Body Tethering for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Quality of Evidence and Recommendations From a Systematic Overview of Systematic Reviews in Literature.
Article in International journal of spine surgery, 2025. 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
- Reoperation and fusion after documented tether breakage following vertebral body tethering: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Spine deformity · 2026Article
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
backgroundThis systematic overview investigates prior systematic reviews exploring vertebral body tethering (VBT) in managing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). The aim is to assess the quality of literature, present the current best evidence, and formulate recommendations.
methodsWe independently conducted duplicate electronic searches in Embase, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until 19 August 2023, for systematic reviews on VBT for AIS. Methodological quality was assessed using Oxford Levels of Evidence, Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scoring, and AMSTAR 2 grading. The Jadad decision algorithm was utilized to identify the study with the highest quality, representing the current best evidence for recommendations.
resultsTen systematic reviews meeting eligibility criteria were included. AMSTAR scores ranged from 4 to 10 (mean: 6.8), indicating varied methodological quality. Most studies had critically low reliability in result summaries per AMSTAR 2 grades. The current best evidence (level IV) suggests VBT as an effective surgical approach for scoliosis, with 73.9% achieving clinical success. However, 15.8% required unplanned reoperations, and 52.2% experienced complications, with a 22% tether failure rate. Thus, patient discussions should address the high reoperation and complication rates associated with this procedure.
conclusionThe quality of evidence on VBT for AIS is critically low. Despite the systematic overview and identifying the best evidence in the literature, high-quality recommendations for practice could not be generated. Future studies with extended follow-up periods are imperative to comprehend VBT's utility in AIS management. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Evidence around the use of VBT for AIS is critically low, hence usage of VBT must be considered with caution in AIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.