Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41776116›Full record

ArticleSpine deformity2026

A scoping review of published reviews on the use of bracing in scoliosis.

Danielle Hahn, Amy Artajos, Xanthe Elliot, Tara Jevric, Abigail Moore, Lizzie Swaby, Dan Hind, Ashley A Cole

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Spine deformity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Danielle HahnSCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. d.hahn@sheffield.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-9818-7997
Amy ArtajosSCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Xanthe ElliotSCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Tara JevricSCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Abigail MooreSCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Lizzie SwabySCHARR, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Dan HindSchool of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ashley A ColeDepartment of Paediatric Orthopaedics, Sheffield Children's Hospital, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeScoliosis is a three-dimensional spinal deformity exceeding 10 degrees. Left untreated, it can lead to comorbidities, as well as surface deformity. Brace treatment is common in smaller curves (20-40 degrees), with strong evidence in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), but overall effectiveness and impact on quality of life is controversial. This scoping review sought to map existing reviews on all aspects of bracing in scoliosis of any aetiology, to identify future research priorities.

methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE, excluding abstracts, narrative reviews and guidelines. Included articles reported on scoliosis patients of any age and aetiology and examined the use of spinal bracing. Four independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion and completed data extraction. Data were summarised narratively in themes, looking at effectiveness of bracing in AIS, patient factors influencing outcomes of AIS brace treatment, interventions to improve bracing success in AIS, patient and family experiences with bracing in AIS and bracing in adult and neuromuscular scoliosis. AMSTAR2 was used to assess confidence in the results in the reviews.

resultsSearches yielded 59 eligible studies which were included. Whilst bracing is recommended for curves 20°-40° in AIS, it may be successful in those over 40° with good compliance. Bracing is effective in lowering rates of curve progression in AIS and therefore reducing surgery rates. There is no strong evidence that one brace type produces superior outcomes over another, compared to other treatments. Brace adherence is associated with significantly lower rates of curve progression; this is affected by appearance, comfort and psychology. Evidence shows adherence improves with sensor monitoring and psychosocial interventions. Some evidence suggests in-brace correction can be predicted by curve flexibility. More remaining growth potential and associated factors (younger age, lower Risser stage, pre-menarchial, open triradiate cartilage) can increase the risk of curve progression during bracing. Scoliosis-specific exercises may be beneficial alongside brace treatment. Long-term QoL does not appear to be affected by brace treatment. Some low-quality evidence suggests reduced QoL during bracing compared to observation. Function may be impacted by brace treatment, but pain is not increased. In degenerative spinal deformity, there may be some shorter term benefit for pain and function. Little evidence on bracing in neuromuscular scoliosis exists.

conclusionThere is a large research base of evidence to support bracing for AIS; however, this base is limited due to the substantial amount of low-quality research it includes. The aim of this scoping review was to identify gaps in the literature to guide future research. This comprehensive review captured the breadth of existing review evidence on all aspects of bracing in scoliosis. Evidence supports bracing as an effective treatment in scoliosis, controlling curve progression, and often increasing patient satisfaction. Compliance is key, and measures such as compliance sensors can be effective. This scoping review has summarised the existing literature; however, the evidence base is limited. Further research could explore objective measures for compliance monitoring, optimal treatment protocols around brace cessation and effects of bracing on patient quality of life.

Indexed as

BracesScoliosisAdolescentHumansQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeBracingScoliosisScoping review

Identifiers

PMID41776116
PMCPMC13323119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.