SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Short-term effectiveness of soft bracing in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo analyse the short-term effectiveness of soft bracing in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients in terms of the correction success rate, daily wear time and comfort levels and explore the sources of heterogeneity.
methodsA literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web Of Science, and Cochrane Library from the establishment of the literature database to April 2023. According to the evaluation criteria for the effectiveness of bracing from the International Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) and the evaluation indicators of the success rate in previous studies, the success rate was defined as a Cobb angle ≤ 5° curve progression at maturity and a terminal follow-up angle < 45°. The success rate of soft bracing was compared with that of observation and rigid bracing. The daily wear time and comfort levels of soft bracing were compared with those of rigid bracing. The data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4, Stata 15.0 and IBM SPSS 25.0.
resultsTwelve studies involving 510 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In the single-arm analysis of 12 studies, the success rate of soft braces was 70% [OR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.61, 0.77), P < 0.0001]. In the double-arm analysis, 4 studies reported that the success rate of soft bracing was lower than that of rigid bracing [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.53, 0.81), P < 0.0001]. Three studies reported that the success rate of soft bracing was higher than that of observation [RR = 2.02, 95% CI (1.41, 2.89), P = 0.0001]. According to the subgroup analysis, the success rate of the Cobb angle < 30° was 71% [OR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.63, 0.78), P < 0.00001], and the success rate of the prospective studies was 75% [OR = 0.75, 95% CI (0.70, 0.79), P < 0.00001]. The study types were heterogeneous source and the subgroup with a Cobb angle < 30° had a higher success rate and less heterogeneity. The wear time every day of the brace was 20.83 ± 2.08 h for the soft braces and 12.85 ± 2.08 h for the rigid braces, and there was a significant difference between the two groups (t = 10.39, p < 0.001).
conclusionsSoft braces had short-term effectiveness for mild to moderate AIS patients compared with observation groups, and they had a lower success rate and higher daily wear time and comfort levels than rigid bracing. The subgroup of patients with a Cobb angle < 30° had a higher success rate and less heterogeneity in terms of soft bracing.
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.