Literature DB >> 24777669

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

Maciej Płaszewski1, Josette Bettany-Saltikov.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Recommendations addressing school screening for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis are contradictory. Consequently a critical evaluation of the methodological quality of available systematic reviews, including those upon which these recommendations are based, was conducted.
METHODS: Articles meeting the minimal criteria to be considered a systematic review were included for a best evidence synthesis, umbrella review of secondary studies. The primary outcome measure was "any recommendation addressing the continuation, or not, of school screening programs". Multiple general bibliographic databases, guideline registries, as well as websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology of included reviews. Venn diagrams were created to examine potential overlaps across included papers within different reviews.
RESULTS: Six reviews undertaken between 2002 and 2011, scored as moderate to low quality, were included. The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening was found to be based on an outdated (2004) low-quality review, whilst two higher quality and more recent (2009 and 2010) reviews support the continuation of school screening programs.
CONCLUSIONS: As the existing recommendations supporting screening are based on moderate quality evidence whilst the recommendations against screening are based on low-quality evidence, the latter recommendations appear to be both unconvincing and methodologically invalid.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24777669     DOI: 10.1007/s00586-014-3307-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Spine J        ISSN: 0940-6719            Impact factor:   3.134


  40 in total

1.  Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process.

Authors:  R P Harris; M Helfand; S H Woolf; K N Lohr; C D Mulrow; S M Teutsch; D Atkins
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.043

2.  How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Mary B Barton; Therese Miller; Tracy Wolff; Diana Petitti; Michael LeFevre; George Sawaya; Barbara Yawn; Janelle Guirguis-Blake; Ned Calonge; Russell Harris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-06-18       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Estimating the effectiveness of screening for scoliosis.

Authors:  B Stephens Richards; James H Beaty; George H Thompson; R Baxter Willis
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 7.124

4.  A meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-operative treatments for idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  D E Rowe; S M Bernstein; M F Riddick; F Adler; J B Emans; D Gardner-Bonneau
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 5.284

5.  The British decision and subsequent events.

Authors:  G Burwell
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1988-10       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 6.  Clinical practice. Idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents.

Authors:  M Timothy Hresko
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.

Authors:  Farhaan Altaf; Alexander Gibson; Zaher Dannawi; Hilali Noordeen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-04-30

8.  A dangerous curve: the role of history in America's scoliosis screening programs.

Authors:  Beth Linker
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-02-16       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Policy statement. US Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors: 
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1993-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Selective screening for scoliosis.

Authors:  William P Bunnell
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  6 in total

1.  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

2.  No Recommendation Is (at Least Presently) the Best Recommendation: An Updating Quality Appraisal of Recommendations on Screening for Scoliosis.

Authors:  Maciej Płaszewski
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-05-30       Impact factor: 4.614

Review 3.  2016 SOSORT guidelines: orthopaedic and rehabilitation treatment of idiopathic scoliosis during growth.

Authors:  Stefano Negrini; Sabrina Donzelli; Angelo Gabriele Aulisa; Dariusz Czaprowski; Sanja Schreiber; Jean Claude de Mauroy; Helmut Diers; Theodoros B Grivas; Patrick Knott; Tomasz Kotwicki; Andrea Lebel; Cindy Marti; Toru Maruyama; Joe O'Brien; Nigel Price; Eric Parent; Manuel Rigo; Michele Romano; Luke Stikeleather; James Wynne; Fabio Zaina
Journal:  Scoliosis Spinal Disord       Date:  2018-01-10

Review 4.  Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews.

Authors:  Maciej Płaszewski; Josette Bettany-Saltikov
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-29       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  A Study to Determine the Frequency Rate of Scoliosis Disorder and Compare the Anthropometric Characteristics of Normal versus the Scoliosis Diagnosed Students.

Authors:  Gholamreza Khosravi; Mohammad Reza Sharif; Erfan Khosravi; Fatemeh Kardan; Hamed Haddad Kashani; Mansour Sayyah
Journal:  Glob J Health Sci       Date:  2016-09-01

6.  Mapping the evidence of experiences related to adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a scoping review protocol.

Authors:  Maciej Płaszewski; Weronika Grantham; Ejgil Jespersen
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.