Perbandingan Spinal Brace Fleksibel dan Rigid pada Skoliosis Idiopatik Remaja: A Systematic Review and Meta Analisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of flexible versus rigid spinal braces in managing curve progression among adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus up to July 7, 2021. Eligible studies directly compared the effectiveness of both brace types in AIS patients. Two independent reviewers performed screening, quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool, and data extraction. From 39 full-text articles, 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a random-effects model. Pooled results showed a significant difference in treatment success at skeletal maturity between flexible and rigid braces [RR 0.72; 95% CI (0.58–0.88); P=0.001]. Subgroup analyses confirmed the robustness of these findings (P=0.001; I²=0%). Conversely, no significant differences were found in curve progression beyond 45° or curve stability two years after skeletal maturity. Overall, rigid braces made from thermoplastic materials demonstrated superior effectiveness in preventing curve progression until skeletal maturity in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. These results reaffirm the clinical importance of rigid bracing as the current standard of care in AIS management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".