Cargando…
Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art
The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26279671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0046-7 |
_version_ | 1782385900931514368 |
---|---|
author | Zaina, Fabio Romano, Michele Knott, Patrick de Mauroy, Jean Claude Grivas, Theodoros B. Kotwicki, Tomasz Maruyama, Toru O’Brien, Joseph Rigo, Manuel Negrini, Stefano |
author_facet | Zaina, Fabio Romano, Michele Knott, Patrick de Mauroy, Jean Claude Grivas, Theodoros B. Kotwicki, Tomasz Maruyama, Toru O’Brien, Joseph Rigo, Manuel Negrini, Stefano |
author_sort | Zaina, Fabio |
collection | PubMed |
description | The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation was demonstrated by two RCTs for bracing, and one for scoliosis-specific exercises provided by a physical therapist. It is difficult to design strong studies in this field due to the long time needed for follow up and the challenge of recruiting patients and families willing to be involved in the decision process. Nevertheless, the main methodological errors are not related to the study design but rather on the way it is performed, which very frequently affects the reliability of results. The most common errors are: selection bias, with many studies including functional rather than a true structural scoliosis; inappropriate outcome measures, utilizing parameters not related to scoliosis progression or quality of life; inappropriate follow up, reporting only immediate results and not addressing end of growth results; an incorrect interpretation of findings, with an overestimation of results; and missing the evaluation of skeletal maturity, without which results cannot be considered stable. Being aware of these errors is extremely important both for authors and for readers in order to avoid questionable practices based on inconclusive studies that could harm patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4537531 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45375312015-08-16 Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art Zaina, Fabio Romano, Michele Knott, Patrick de Mauroy, Jean Claude Grivas, Theodoros B. Kotwicki, Tomasz Maruyama, Toru O’Brien, Joseph Rigo, Manuel Negrini, Stefano Scoliosis Review The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation was demonstrated by two RCTs for bracing, and one for scoliosis-specific exercises provided by a physical therapist. It is difficult to design strong studies in this field due to the long time needed for follow up and the challenge of recruiting patients and families willing to be involved in the decision process. Nevertheless, the main methodological errors are not related to the study design but rather on the way it is performed, which very frequently affects the reliability of results. The most common errors are: selection bias, with many studies including functional rather than a true structural scoliosis; inappropriate outcome measures, utilizing parameters not related to scoliosis progression or quality of life; inappropriate follow up, reporting only immediate results and not addressing end of growth results; an incorrect interpretation of findings, with an overestimation of results; and missing the evaluation of skeletal maturity, without which results cannot be considered stable. Being aware of these errors is extremely important both for authors and for readers in order to avoid questionable practices based on inconclusive studies that could harm patients. BioMed Central 2015-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4537531/ /pubmed/26279671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0046-7 Text en © Zaina et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Zaina, Fabio Romano, Michele Knott, Patrick de Mauroy, Jean Claude Grivas, Theodoros B. Kotwicki, Tomasz Maruyama, Toru O’Brien, Joseph Rigo, Manuel Negrini, Stefano Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title | Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title_full | Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title_fullStr | Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title_full_unstemmed | Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title_short | Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
title_sort | research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4537531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26279671 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13013-015-0046-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zainafabio researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT romanomichele researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT knottpatrick researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT demauroyjeanclaude researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT grivastheodorosb researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT kotwickitomasz researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT maruyamatoru researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT obrienjoseph researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT rigomanuel researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart AT negrinistefano researchqualityinscoliosisconservativetreatmentstateoftheart |