Effectiveness of Orthotic Treatment on Clinical Outcomes of the Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Under Different Wearing Compliance Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wearing spinal orthosis for 16 to 23 hours a day during the teenage years could be challenging and stressful for patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). The investigation of clinical outcomes under various orthosis-wearing compliances can provide helpful insight into orthotic treatment dosage. This systematic review aims to investigate actual orthosis-wearing compliance and evaluate the effectiveness of orthotic treatment in controlling scoliotic curvature and preventing surgery for patients with AIS under various levels of orthosis-wearing compliance. METHODS: A literature search of 7 electronic databases, namely PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, and Embase, was conducted on May 19, 2023. Participant characteristics, orthotic treatment protocols, compliance information, outcome measures, and key findings were extracted. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scales were used to evaluate the quality of included cohort and case-control studies. RESULTS: This study systematically reviewed 17 of 1,799 identified studies, including 1,981 subjects. The actual compliance was inconsistent and ranged from 7.0 to 18.8 hours daily. The proportion of compliant subjects in each study varied from 16.0% to 78.6% due to the heterogeneity of calculation period, measurement methods, and orthosis prescription time. Thirteen studies were investigated to determine the effectiveness of orthotic treatment in controlling curve deformity under different compliance groups, and 2 studies compared the compliance under different treatment outcomes. The rate of curve progression, defined as surpassing the measurement error threshold of 5° or 6° after orthotic treatment, varied from 1.8% to 91.7% across the studies. Ten studies defined the treatment failure, surgery, or surgery indication as Cobb angle progressing to a certain degree (e.g., 40°, 45°, or 50°) and reported failure/surgery/surgery indication rates ranging from 0.0% to 91.7% among different compliance level groups. CONCLUSION: This review found that the actual compliance with orthotic treatment was generally lower than the prescribed wearing time and exhibited wide variation among different studies. The electronic compliance monitors show promise in regular orthotic treatment practice. More importantly, the group with higher and consistent compliance has significantly less curve progression and lower surgery or failure rate than the group with lower and inconsistent compliance. Further studies are proposed to investigate the minimal orthosis-wearing compliance in patients with AIS treated with different types of orthoses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".