Gait kinetics in individuals with scoliosis: a systematic review and meta analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to systematically review studies assessing gait kinetics in individuals with scoliosis. MAIN BODY: This systematic review and meta-analysis used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess quality of included studies. GRADE was employed to assess the overall quality of the evidence in the meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to address potential heterogeneity. We searched four databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase from their inception through 4th January 2025. studies which assessed gait kinetics in individuals with scoliosis. Twenty seven studies with a total sample size of 1087 were included. The meta-analysis indicated strong evidence of decreased left foot first peak vertical ground reaction force (vGRF) (Z = 2.87, P = 0.004), 16% increase in energy cost (Z = 7.13, P = 0.00001) with high certainty, and non-significant change in right foot anterior and posterior GRF, right foot first and second peak mediolateral GRF with moderate certainty and internal work, left foot vGRF at midstance, left foot anterior and posterior GRF, right foot third peak mediolateral GRF and left foot first, second and third peak mediolateral GRF. Sensitivity analysis revealed a non-significant change in right and left second peak vGRF. CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis provide evidence of altered gait kinetics in individuals with scoliosis, highlighting significant differences in GRF and energy cost. These findings support the need for braces with dynamic pressure redistribution to address uneven loading, alongside rehabilitation strategies (e.g., symmetry-focused gait training specially mediolateral GRF) to improve functional outcomes. Future longitudinal studies should evaluate whether correcting these kinetic deviations mitigates secondary complications like joint degeneration.
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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".