Literature DB >> 20393399

A meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of school scoliosis screening.

Daniel Yee Tak Fong1, Chun Fan Lee, Kenneth Man Chee Cheung, Jack Chun Yiu Cheng, Bobby Kin Wah Ng, Tsz Ping Lam, Kwok Hang Mak, Paul Siu Fai Yip, Keith Dip Kei Luk.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: A meta-analysis that systematically reviewed the evaluation studies of a scoliosis screening program reported in the literature.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the best current evidence on the clinical effectiveness of school screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The use of school scoliosis screening is controversial, and its clinical effectiveness has been diversely reported.
METHODS: Data sources included 3 databases, namely, PubMed, Google scholar, CINAHL database, and the references from identified reviews and studies. Studies were included if: (1) they adopted a retrospective cohort design; (2) were screened using either the forward bending test (FBT), angle of trunk rotation, or Moiré topography; (3) reported results of screening tests and radiographic assessments; (4) screened adolescents only; (5) reported the incidence of curves with a minimum Cobb angle of 10 degrees or greater; and (6) reported the number of referrals for radiography. Reviews, comments, case studies, and editorials were excluded.
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies, including 34 from the 775 initially identified studies and 2 from the references, met the selection criteria. The pooled referral rate for radiography was 5.0%, and the pooled positive predictive values for detecting curves > or =10 degrees , curves > or =20 degrees , and treatment were 28.0%, 5.6%, and 2.6%, respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies. Meta-regression showed that programs using the FBT alone reported a higher referral rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.91) and lower positive predictive values for curves > or =10 degrees (OR = 0.49) and curves > or =20 degrees (OR = 0.34) than programs using other tests. Only one small study followed students until skeletal maturity and reported the sensitivity of screening; however, the specificity was not reported. No severe publication bias was noted.
CONCLUSION: The use of the FBT alone in school scoliosis screening is insufficient. We need large, retrospective cohort studies with sufficient follow-up to properly assess the clinical effectiveness of school scoliosis screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20393399     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181bcc835

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  47 in total

1.  Knowledge and management of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis among family physicians, pediatricians, chiropractors and physiotherapists in Québec, Canada: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Jean Théroux; Guy Grimard; Marie Beauséjour; Hubert Labelle; Debbie Ehrmann Feldman
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2013-09

2.  Does School Screening Affect Scoliosis Curve Magnitude at Presentation to a Pediatric Orthopedic Clinic?

Authors:  Joshua J Thomas; Anthony A Stans; Todd A Milbrandt; Vickie M Treder; Hilal Maradit Kremers; William J Shaughnessy; A Noelle Larson
Journal:  Spine Deform       Date:  2018 Jul - Aug

Review 3.  Reliability and validity of inexpensive and easily administered anthropometric clinical evaluation methods of postural asymmetry measurement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ashleigh Prowse; Rodney Pope; Paul Gerdhem; Allan Abbott
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 4.  Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review.

Authors:  Maciej Płaszewski; Josette Bettany-Saltikov
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-04-29       Impact factor: 3.134

5.  Patterns of coronal curve changes in forward bending posture: a 3D ultrasound study of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients.

Authors:  Wei Wei Jiang; Connie Lok Kan Cheng; Jason Pui Yin Cheung; Dino Samartzis; Kelly Ka Lee Lai; Michael Kai Tsun To; Yong Ping Zheng
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 6.  Idiopathic scoliosis and the vestibular system.

Authors:  Ammar H Hawasli; Timothy E Hullar; Ian G Dorward
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 7.  Idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Per Trobisch; Olaf Suess; Frank Schwab
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2010-12-10       Impact factor: 5.594

8.  School screening and point prevalence of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in 4000 Norwegian children aged 12 years.

Authors:  Raphael D Adobor; Silje Rimeslatten; Harald Steen; Jens Ivar Brox
Journal:  Scoliosis       Date:  2011-10-24

Review 9.  Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Markus Rafael Konieczny; Hüsseyin Senyurt; Rüdiger Krauspe
Journal:  J Child Orthop       Date:  2012-12-11       Impact factor: 1.548

10.  Predictors of spine deformity progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andriy Noshchenko; Lilian Hoffecker; Emily M Lindley; Evalina L Burger; Christopher Mj Cain; Vikas V Patel; Andrew P Bradford
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-08-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.