SynthesisFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Comparative efficacy of different scoliosis-specific exercise protocols on cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Schroth exercises added to bracing for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of different scoliosis-specific exercise protocols on the Cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) using a network meta-analysis, and to rank the five key prescription parameters-exercise type, intervention period, session duration, frequency, and intensity-within a unified evidence framework, thereby moving beyond the traditional question of "whether exercise works" to address "which parameter combinations have the highest probability of producing optimal improvement." Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases for randomized controlled trials from inception to December 2025. Two researchers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 16.0 were used for data analysis. Results: A total of 24 studies involving 1,149 patients were included. The network meta-analysis showed that: regarding exercise type, Schroth combined with sensory integration training showed the greatest effect size [MD = -8.01, 95% CI (-11.47, -4.54)]; regarding intervention period, 12-18 weeks showed the greatest effect size [MD = -3.67, 95% CI (-5.52, -1.81)]; regarding session duration, 60 min showed the greatest effect size [MD = -4.00, 95% CI (-5.76, -2.23)]; regarding frequency, three times per week showed the greatest effect size [MD = -3.55, 95% CI (-4.76, -2.35)]; regarding intensity, moderate intensity showed the greatest effect size [MD = -3.78, 95% CI (-5.99, -1.57)]. The SUCRA rankings placed these parameters first in their respective networks. Conclusion: Based on probability ranking, Schroth combined with sensory integration training, delivered at moderate intensity, three times per week, 30-60 min per session, for 12-18 weeks, is likely to be among the most effective protocols for improving the Cobb angle in AIS. However, this finding is derived from a limited number of studies, and each protocol component is supported by sparse evidence within its respective network. These results should be interpreted with caution and must be individualized in clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: identifier PROSPERO CRD420251249777.
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.