ArticleSpine deformity2026
In-brace correction but not coronal deformity angular ratio is associated with curve progression in nighttime brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether in-brace correction (IBC) and coronal deformity angular ratio (CDAR) differ by curve location and whether they predict curve progression.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of 282 AIS patients ages 10-16, with Risser 0-2, curves 15°-40° prescribed Providence nighttime braces between 2015 and 2019 with IB radiographs. Patients were followed to skeletal maturity or surgical magnitude. IBC was calculated by comparing standing brace prescription radiographs and supine in-brace radiographs. CDAR was defined as Cobb angle divided by the number of vertebrae in the primary curve. Curve location (thoracic [T], thoracolumbar [TL], or lumbar [L]) was defined by the primary curve apex. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated associations between IBC, CDAR, and curve progression (≥ 6°).
resultsThoracolumbar curves demonstrated greater IBC than thoracic or lumbar curves (113% vs. 88% vs. 94%, p < 0.001), while lumbar curves had higher CDAR (4.6 vs. 4.2 vs. 3.3, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, decreased IBC (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04 - 0.36) and open triradiate cartilage (OR 2.73, 95% CI 1.56 - 4.88) were independently associated with curve progression. CDAR was not predictive. ROC analysis identified an IBC threshold of 93% for successful treatment (AUC = 0.65).
conclusionIn Providence nighttime bracing, IBC is an important modifiable risk factor for curve progression, whereas CDAR is not. Maximizing IBC at brace fitting, particularly in skeletally immature patients with open triradiates, may improve treatment success and reduce progression risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42209918What 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.