ReviewBrain & spine2025
Radiological follow-up strategies in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients: A best evidence synthesis by systematic review.
Review in Brain & spine, 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
Introduction: Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) undergo frequent radiographic evaluations due to the progressive nature of the deformity. However, current intervals between radiographs are based on expert consensus, rather than scientific evidence. Research question: To determine appropriate radiological follow-up intervals based on estimated monthly deformity changes in observed AIS patients. Material and methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception until January 8th, 2025. Inclusion criteria were: (1) studies including AIS patients observed using radiological follow-up alone, and (2) reporting average monthly curve progression or curve progression rate over a pre-determined follow-up interval. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool. Deformity progression rates were defined to categorize patient- and radiological characteristics into low-, moderate-, or high-grade progression with corresponding recommendations for radiological follow-up. Results: Nine eligible studies were identified, including a total of 2326 AIS patients. Monthly curve progression was sufficiently reported for four prognostic factors. Most articles reported curve progression rates according to patients' bone age, dictating a six-month radiological follow-up interval until skeletal maturity is approached. Nearly all studies showed a high risk of bias along with heterogeneity in the prognostic factors analyzed for curve progression. Thus, data regarding the suggested radiological follow-up intervals was inconclusive. Discussion and conclusion: Due to the high risk of bias and heterogeneity among the included studies, conclusive evidence could not be established. Limited evidence suggests radiographic follow-up every six months until skeletal maturity is approached, with annual follow-up thereafter.
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.