ArticleSpine deformity2026
Reporting quality and risk of bias in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: a systematic evaluation on behalf of the SRS comprehensive care committee.
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
backgroundReporting quality in studies on brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is highly variable, which limits the interpretability of outcomes and introduces potential sources of bias. In 2015, the Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) issued recommendations to standardize research methodology and improve transparency in scoliosis bracing studies.
aimTo evaluate the quality of reporting and risk of bias in AIS brace studies and to examine whether studies published after 2015 demonstrate adherence to SOSORT/SRS recommendations.
designSystematic evaluation of reporting quality and risk of bias.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Medline, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for studies reporting outcomes of specific brace treatments in AIS. Two independent reviewers screened studies according to predefined criteria. Reporting quality was assessed using a 19-item checklist derived from the 2015 SOSORT/SRS recommendations (score range 1-18).
resultsA total of 163 studies met inclusion criteria (129 published before 2015 and 34 after). The median reporting quality score was 6 (range 2-12), with no significant improvement in studies published after the SOSORT/SRS recommendations (median 6 vs. 7, p = 0.53). While most studies described the study population (75%), key elements with direct implications for risk of bias were consistently underreported: inclusion of "Risser 0-2, 25-40° curves" (31%), incorporation of skeletal maturity staging in analyses (1%), adherence monitoring (17%), patient-centered outcomes (13%), and standardized timepoint reporting (37%). Radiographic outcomes were commonly reported (93%), but validated quality of life measures were rarely used (13%).
conclusionReporting quality in AIS brace studies remains low. This study identifies the persistent gaps that contribute to substantial risk of bias and limit comparability across studies. Despite the publication of SOSORT/SRS recommendations, adherence remains limited. A structured, standardized reporting framework is needed to improve transparency, reduce bias, and enhance the comparability of future research in AIS bracing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42373920What 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.