Short-Term Benefit from Core Stabilization Exercises in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Idiopathic scoliosis may affect adolescents’ physical development. This systematic review and meta-analysis determined the effectiveness of core stabilization exercises in improving clinical symptoms of idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. Methods. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase for randomized controlled studies investigating core stabilization exercise and idiopathic scoliosis. Two investigators independently extracted data based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the selected literature and we performed a meta-analysis to assess the clinical utility of core stabilization exercise for the improvement of patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Results. This systematic review and meta-analysis included 9 studies. Three of the studies revealed that core stabilization exercise improved Cobb’s angle (SMD: −1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI): (−1.41, −0.72), and P < 0.001 ) in adolescents’ idiopathic scoliosis, but the subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in Cobb’s angle in the thoracic and lumbar segments (SMD: −0.25, 95% CI: (−0.55, 0.04), and P=0.89 ). In the angle of trunk rotation subgroup analyses (SMD: 0.35, 95% CI: (−0.01, 0.72), and P=0.33 ), there was no significant difference before and after core stabilization exercise treatment. Conclusions. The results showed a very short-term effect of core stabilization exercise on patients with idiopathic scoliosis. However, this study contains a relatively short period of research and more long-term research is needed in the future to support this conclusion.
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 | 0.021 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".