ReviewCureus2025
Qualitative Analysis of the Literature on Distraction-Based Techniques for Early-Onset Scoliosis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early-onset scoliosis (EOS) presents significant clinical challenges due to its impact on growth and pulmonary development. Because the available evidence is heterogeneous and high-quality comparative trials are scarce, we incorporated an exploratory qualitative content analysis to complement the systematic review. Fifty documents, including comparative studies, systematic reviews, a health technology assessment report, and economic evaluations, were analyzed by using NVivo qualitative analysis software (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) and categorized into six thematic groups. These included studies evaluating the three main distraction-based techniques, traditional growing rods, magnetically controlled growing rods, and Vertical Expandable Prosthetic Titanium Rib (VEPTR). Word-cloud visualizations showed that most studies consistently emphasized patients, surgical techniques, deformity correction, and growth-related aspects, represented by concepts associated with curve correction and spinal height gain, such as Cobb angle and T1-S1 height. Follow-up and procedural aspects also appeared frequently, whereas economic evaluations focused on costs and resource use. In contrast, clinically important areas such as pulmonary function, health-related quality of life, and long-term outcomes were infrequently addressed across categories, revealing major evidence gaps. This qualitative approach highlights the dimensions most commonly explored in the literature, identifies underrepresented outcomes relevant to clinical decision-making, and underscores the need for future research that integrates functional and patient-centered measures to support comprehensive care planning in EOS.
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.