ArticleSpine deformity2026
I do what I want: are our patients adhering to bracing recommendations? Early results of a prospective cohort study.
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.
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.
- I do what I want, which depends on what you do to help me understand what is at stake-my future.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Treatment outcomes across curve patterns and severities in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis treated with a pattern-specific CAD-CAM brace.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 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
Abstract
purposeBracing is the mainstay of treatment for growing adolescents affected by idiopathic scoliosis with curves between 25° and 45°. Previous randomized trials and prospective studies have indicated that duration of bracing is an important factor in preventing curve progression. We aimed to compare actual in brace time to prescribed time.
methodsWe prospectively collected heat sensor data to assess bracing adherence. We aimed to assess brace prescription versus actual wear time and if any demographic or curve factors affected this relationship.
resultsWe identified 104 patients with minimum 6-month follow-up brace heat sensor data. Average brace prescription was 16.5 h/day, and wear time, as indicated by heat sensor, was 12.9 h. This constituted 3.6 less hours worn than prescribed (2.4-4.3; p < 0.001). Thoracic curves had decreased brace wear versus target compared to thoracolumbar/lumbar (T/L) curves. Curve magnitude was positively associated with total brace wear average, but was not associated with adherence versus target brace wear. Diminishing returns in brace wear times were noted with prescriptions over 16 h.
conclusionBrace adherence averages 3.6 h less than prescribed or 78.2% of the original prescribed time. Patients with larger curves were prescribed longer brace wear but did not have better adherence versus target. Thoracic curves had less adherence compared to T/L curves. The only modifiable independent risk factor we were able to determine for greater brace wear was prescribed hours. This information can be used to counsel patients during bracing treatment.
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.