ArticleSpine deformity2026
Quality of life and mental health in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis undergoing brace treatment: a systematic review and pooled analysis of quantitative studies.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common paediatric spinal deformity. While bracing limits curve progression, its psychological and social effects remain unclear. This review and pooled analysis evaluate bracing's impact on quality of life (QoL) and mental health in AIS.
methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO (Dec 2024). Quantitative studies involving AIS patients undergoing brace treatment were included. Primary outcomes were QoL scores and reported mental health impact, assessed using validated tools. Risk of bias was assessed. A narrative synthesis was completed, with a pooled analysis to show effect sizes.
resultsThe searches identified 78 studies. A narrative review of the QoL questionnaires in cross-sectional studies, cohort studies and comparisons of brace treatment versus observation in AIS patients found mild and often non-statistically significant reduction in psychological well-being, more social difficulties, impaired physical functioning, more discomfort and lower self-image. These changes were often transient, improving or stabilising during bracing and mostly resolving after brace treatment. Longer brace prescriptions (more hours per day) and bulkier brace designs were negative factors. Family support, brace adherence and bracing success seemed to have a positive effect. Studies comparing brace treatment with surgery found surgically treated patients had mild and often non-statistically significantly improved QoL, self-image and psychological well-being but reduced satisfaction. Most studies showed a moderate risk of bias. The review included a pooled analysis of 51 studies using SRS-22 (n = 4193) with an overall, mean SRS-22 score during bracing of 4.05 (95% CI: 3.96, 4.13). Comparing bracing with observation (8 studies, n = 2374) shows a small QoL difference favouring no bracing (pooled effect size: - 0.11; 95% CI: - 0.21, 0.00), with extreme heterogeneity (I2 = 83%).
conclusionBracing generally resulted in lower scores for psychological issues, physical and social function and self-image compared to no treatment. Overall pooled differences were small and braced patients retained good QoL. Long-term data suggest improvement after brace treatment completion. Given high heterogeneity and risk of bias, high-quality research is needed to better evaluate psychosocial outcomes during and after AIS bracing including confounding factors and factors that may improve QoL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (systematic review of level IV studies).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42760479What 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.