Yuhao Zhang1, Xingwei Li2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming, China. 2. Department of Bone and Joint Rehabilitation, Yunnan Province Disabled Rehabilitation Center, Kunming, China. km20150515@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of bracing and other treatments in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials that investigated bracing and other treatments for AIS. The Mantel-Haenszel method with fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven studies that met the eligibility criteria with 791 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested significant differences between bracing and observation groups in successful outcomes [OR 3.58, 95% CI (1.92, 6.68), P < 0.0001; P for heterogeneity = 0.008, I2 = 65%], quality of life [MD = 2.13, 95% CI (0.51, 3.75), P = 0.01; P for heterogeneity = 0.89, I2 = 0%], and adverse events [OR 5.31, 95% CI (2.42, 11.66), P < 0.0001; P for heterogeneity = 0.78, I2 = 0%]. CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that bracing is efficient and safe for the treatment of AIS. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
PURPOSE: A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of bracing and other treatments in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized controlled trials that investigated bracing and other treatments for AIS. The Mantel-Haenszel method with fixed-effects or random-effects model was used to calculate the relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The results of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias were analyzed. RESULTS: Seven studies that met the eligibility criteria with 791 participants were included. The results of meta-analysis suggested significant differences between bracing and observation groups in successful outcomes [OR 3.58, 95% CI (1.92, 6.68), P < 0.0001; P for heterogeneity = 0.008, I2 = 65%], quality of life [MD = 2.13, 95% CI (0.51, 3.75), P = 0.01; P for heterogeneity = 0.89, I2 = 0%], and adverse events [OR 5.31, 95% CI (2.42, 11.66), P < 0.0001; P for heterogeneity = 0.78, I2 = 0%]. CONCLUSION: The findings of this meta-analysis suggested that bracing is efficient and safe for the treatment of AIS. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Authors: Ian Mak; Edmond Lou; James V Raso; Doug L Hill; Eric Parent; James K Mahood; Marc J Moreau; Douglas Hedden Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Obinwanne F Ugwonali; Guillem Lomas; Julie C Choe; Joshua E Hyman; Francis Y Lee; Michael G Vitale; David P Roye Journal: Spine J Date: 2004 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.166