"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

Margaret Mead

Review article
peer-reviewed

Physiotherapy Interventions for Preventing Spinal Curve Progression in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review



Abstract

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is an abnormal curvature of the spine that appears in late childhood or adolescence. The aim of this systematic review was to present and synthesize the most relevant therapeutic advice and evidence on the efficacy of physiotherapy exercises for preventing the growth of spinal curvature caused by adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. "Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis," "exercise," "Cobb angle," and "physiotherapy" were the sole keywords used for the published research. Using these keywords and a combination of them, electronic resources such as PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) host, and ScienceDirect (Elsevier) were searched. The search was restricted to studies that were conducted in English between 2010 and 15 January 2022 that were controlled, randomized, and non-randomized. Studies were selected based on their titles and abstracts, with the exception of any that did not pertain to the study's goals. The Cobb angle was the important outcome measure. For each intervention, the Cobb angle's mean change score, the difference between the final and baseline scores, was determined. Nine studies were evaluated to be of outstanding quality out of a total of 20 studies that were reviewed for eligibility. With an exercise regimen of at least seven weeks, controls on lowering the Cobb angle in patients with AIS would provide encouraging outcomes. It also shows that bracing can strengthen the Cobb angle compared to exercise in the community. However, long-term orthotic activity ultimately results in trunk resistance and muscle loss in the center of the back. The combination of techniques and treatment methods seems to have better results in treating scoliosis, particularly using exercises involving the Schroth and scientific exercise approach to scoliosis (SEAS).

Introduction & Background

Scoliosis is a three-dimensional spine deformity characterized by a greater than 10-degree lateral curvature of the spine in the coronal plane [1]. It is the most common spinal abnormality and gets its name from the ancient Greek word "skolios," which means "curved" [2,3]. It can be classified into different categories according to the age of onset, etiology, incidence, and curve shape; for example, it can be grouped according to causes into three main types: congenital, syndromic, and idiopathic [1,3,4]. Congenital scoliosis is a spinal deformity caused by the failure of normal vertebral development, whereas syndromic scoliosis is caused by neurofibromatosis, other significant medical problems, or the dysfunction of the neuromuscular, skeletal, and connective tissue systems. Idiopathic scoliosis has no known etiology and can be categorized into the following categories according to the patient's age at the time of diagnosis: infantile idiopathic scoliosis (IIS), juvenile idiopathic scoliosis (JIS), and adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) [5]. IIS affects patients mainly in the age group of three years and below, JIS affects ages between three and nine years, and AIS affects patients aged 10-18 years. The general term AIS means that adolescents aged 10 years or more are diagnosed with scoliosis, and idiopathic means that the definitive etiology and etiopathogenesis remain unknown. Thoracolumbar/lumbar curves are most common in males; however, females have a higher percentage of thoracic and double curves, but the etiology and pathogenesis of this condition remain unclear. Generally, the patient, family, general practitioner, or school nurse notes postural changes first [6]. However, a detailed medical history, physical examination, and standard scoliosis radiographs have clarified the diagnosis of AIS.

The Cobb angle is the curvature of the spine, and measuring it is essential for determining the severity of scoliosis, selecting the best course of action, and monitoring the progression or regression of cases following treatment [7,8]. There are many ways to measure and calculate the Cobb angle; for example, it can be performed manually by measuring the spinal angle on an X-ray posterior-anterior (PA) film, which is the standard approach used to measure the scoliosis angle by identifying the upper and lower vertebrae of the spinal deformity, drawing lines extending along vertebral borders, and measuring the Cobb angle directly or geometrically, digitally using a smart phone, radiographic program, or others [9]. Curves measuring less than 25 degrees were classified as mild, those measuring 25-40 degrees were moderate, and more than 40 degrees were considered severe. The angle of trunk rotation and the apex of the curve deformity are measured using a scoliometer or inclinometer in which an angle of five degrees or less is considered normal whereas an angle of seven or more is considered abnormal [10]. It is impossible to stop the event of scoliosis; therefore, early detection is currently supported to ensure that appropriate treatment is often provided. The utilization of forward-bending screening tests may be a controversial issue, but it is impossible to avoid scoliosis; therefore, "preventive" interventions are limited to early intervention and prompt therapy [11].

These two different approaches to management (non-surgical versus surgical) seem common in various parts of the world [12]. The wait-and-see strategy is common in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, but exercises and bracing are widely recommended for patients in different areas of Europe [13]. The goal of non-surgical treatment during adolescence is to stop curve advancement, whereas curve correction and maintenance are the objectives of surgical intervention. However, pulmonary function is the only negative consequence of AIS and is strongly correlated with curve size. Therefore, when selecting a treatment plan, therapists must be aware of the risk of curve progression. The primary objective of non-surgical treatment is to restrict the number of surgical interventions by reducing curve progression [14]. For the non-surgical management of AIS, a physiotherapy approach that is increasingly widespread involves physical exercises, rehabilitation programs, and the use of braces, which are commonly used to treat AIS [15,16]. However, the efficacy of brace therapy remains controversial [17]. The main goal of AIS bracing is to avoid or prevent the development of spinal deformity curves until skeletal maturity occurs during growth [16]. Bracing is frequently used for patients with spinal curves between 25 and 45 degrees who are skeletally immature. Nevertheless, if a patient has a high probability of curve advancement and the curve is less than 25 degrees, it can be employed [18]. In patients with AIS, bracing substantially decreases the development of high-risk curves to meet the requirements of surgical procedures, and this advantage increases with prolonged periods of brace use [14,19].

However, in order to improve strength, spinal mobility, balance, and spinal deformity in AIS, physical scoliosis exercises must be started as the first-line treatment for mild scoliosis in patients with a low risk of curve advancement [20,21]. Various physiotherapy interventions are available to treat AIS, such as Schroth physiotherapy scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE), core stabilization (CS) exercises, stretching and massage, and manual techniques. This literature review indicates that there is no research that examines how different physical activities affect the Cobb angle in AIS. Therefore, the primary aim of this research is mainly to discuss and compare which physical exercises can have effect on the Cobb angle, and the secondary aim is to check the efficacy of bracing in preventing spinal curvature in AIS.

Review

Research methodology

Single keywords were used to search the electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Elton B. Stephens Company (EBSCO) host, and ScienceDirect (Elsevier). In order to conduct the process, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Searching (PRISMA-S) guidelines were followed, and the search items included "adolescent idiopathic scoliosis," "exercise," "Cobb angle," and "physiotherapy," as well as a combination of keywords. The controlled, randomized, and non-randomized trials conducted in the English language between 2010 and 15 January 2022 were only considered in the bibliographical search. The future inaccessible article authors were contacted and asked to include the full text of their publications. With the exception of those that did not relate to the objectives of this study, the publications were chosen based on their titles and abstracts, and consensus among the reviewers was reached through debate. The search strategies used for the selected studies are listed in Table 1.

Database/date Searches Keyword; ALL Fields; TX All Text; Title or Abstract
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/15 January 2022 #1 Keyword (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis)
#2 Keyword (exercise)
#3 Keyword (physiotherapy)
#4 Keyword (cobb angle)
#5 #1 AND #2 OR #3 AND #4
Limits Clinical trials and English language
PubMed/15 January 2022 #1 ALL Fields (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis)
#2 ALL Fields (exercise)
#3 ALL Fields (physiotherapy)
#4 ALL Fields (cobb angle)
#5 #1 AND #2 OR #3 AND #4
Limits Randomized controlled trials and English language
PEDro/15 January 2022 #1 Title or Abstract (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis)
#2 Title or Abstract (exercise)
#3 Title or Abstract (physiotherapy)
#4 Title or Abstract (cobb angle)
#5 #1 AND #2 OR #3 AND #4
Limits Clinical trials and English language
ScienceDirect (Elsevier)/15 January 2022 #1 Title or Abstract (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis)
#2 Title or Abstract (exercise)
#3 Title or Abstract (physiotherapy)
#4 Title or Abstract (cobb angle)
#5 #1 AND #2 OR #3 AND #4
Limits Research articles and case reports and English language
EBSCOhost (GreenFILE)/15 January 2022 #1 TX All Text (adolescent idiopathic scoliosis)
#2 TX All Text (exercise)
#3 TX All Text (physiotherapy)
#4 TX All Text (cobb) 
#5 #1 AND #2 OR #3 AND #4
Limits Randomized controlled trials and English language

Studies published in English; consisting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); involving participants diagnosed with AIS from the age of 10 years and with a Cobb angle of more than 10 degrees; including physiotherapy intervention without any other related measures and comparison with placebo, control group (CG), or other physiotherapy interventions; and examining the Cobb angle were included in the study, whereas studies that are not in the English language, are not RCTs, were duplicates, do not examine the Cobb angle, and do not focus on physiotherapy exercises were excluded from the study.

The reviewer examined the selected studies and documented the following: author, the year of publication, study design, patient characteristics, exercise regimen information (type, length, dosage, and frequency of exercise), sample size, findings, and conclusions. To reach consensus, the reviewer analyzed the information along with two other analysts. The Cobb angle mean change score, which is the difference between the final and baseline scores, was derived from the included studies' means and standard deviations of the initial and final Cobb angle endpoint scores.

The reviewers assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using an 11-item PEDro scale to assess consistency [22]. As previously mentioned, studies with a score of eight were of excellent quality [23]. The Cochrane Collaboration approach was used to assess the likelihood of bias. Additionally, sequence generation, the concealment of allocation, blinding, the completeness of outcome results, and the lack of selective reporting of outcomes were evaluated. Each domain assessed the probability of bias as low, unknown, or high [24]. The quality of the evidence was determined for each meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system [25]. This method involves reducing the quality of the proof from very high to moderate, low, or very low using specific variables. Biasness was rated as high, low, or ambiguous for each individual aspect in five categories (selection, performance, attrition, reporting, and others). For more information on the Cochrane risk of bias tool, see Table 2.

Number Study Random sequence generation Allocation concealment Selective reporting Other sources of bias Blinding (participants and personnel) Blinding (outcome assessment) Incomplete outcome data Conclusions
Scores Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N/U Y/N Y/N H/L/U
1 Kumar et al. [26] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y L
2 Park et al. [27] Y Y Y Y U Y Y L
3 Shah et al. [28] Y Y Y Y U N Y U
4 Noll et al. [29] Y Y Y N N N Y H
5 Stark et al. [30] Y N Y Y N Y Y L
6 Schreiber et al. [31] Y N Y Y U N Y U
7 Wnuk et al. [32] Y N Y Y Y N Y L
8 Monticone et al. [33] Y Y Y Y U Y Y L
9 Trzcińska and Nowak [34] Y N Y Y N N Y H
10 Monticone et al. [35] Y Y Y N N Y Y U
11 Schreiber et al. [36] Y Y Y N N N Y H
12 Gür et al. [37] Y Y Y Y N N Y U
13 Gao et al. [38] Y Y Y Y Y N Y L
14 Zheng et al. [7] Y Y Y Y Y N Y L
15 Yagci and Yakut [39] Y Y Y Y Y N Y L
16 Kuru et al. [40] Y Y Y N N N Y H
17 Langensiepen et al. [41] Y Y Y N N N Y H
18 Alves de Araújo et al. [42] Y N Y N N N Y H
19 Abbott et al. [43] Y Y Y N N Y Y H
20 Atici et al. [44] Y N Y N N N Y H

Results

Electronic database searches produced 107 search papers, including 27 results from Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, 28 results from EBSCOhost, two results from PEDro, 30 results from PubMed, and 19 results from ScienceDirect (Elsevier). Twenty studies were eventually chosen for quality assessment after 61 papers in which full text was not available, and 26 duplicate publications were removed in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All of the articles were original research studies written in English that examined how exercise affected the Cobb angle (Figure 1).

All 20 studies were evaluated for quality (risk of bias) by using the PEDro score and Cochrane risk of bias. The lack of randomization, concealed allocation, and blinding were the most prevalent errors in the PEDro rankings (patients, therapists, or evaluators). The components of the PEDro scale that were most frequently employed were baseline comparability, follow-up, intention-to-treat analysis, measures of uncertainty, and between-group comparisons, which were evident in all articles. Table 3 shows the PEDro ratings of the selected studies.

Number Study Eligibility criteria Random allocation Concealed allocation Baseline comparability Blinded participants Blinded therapists Blinded assessors Adequate follow-up Intention-to-treat analysis Between-group comparison Point estimates and variability Total score
Scores Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N 10
1 Kumar et al. [26] Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10
2 Park et al. [27] Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 9
3 Shah et al. [28] Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
4 Noll et al. [29] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y 7
5 Stark et al. [30] Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 8
6 Schreiber et al. [31] Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 7
7 Wnuk et al. [32] Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 7
8 Monticone et al. [33] Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 9
9 Trzcińska and Nowak [34] Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 7
10 Monticone et al. [35] Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 7
11 Schreiber et al. [36] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y 7
12 Gür et al. [37] Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 8
13 Gao et al. [38] Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 9
14 Zheng et al. [7] Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 9
15 Yagci and Yakut [39] Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 9
16 Kuru et al. [40] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y 7
17 Langensiepen et al. [41] Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y 7
18 Alves de Araújo et al. [42] Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y 6
19 Abbott et al. [43] Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 8
20 Atici et al. [44] Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y 6

According to an analysis of the overall risk of bias across eight research, the risk was low overall, high in seven of them, and undetermined in four. The probability of bias evaluation for the selected studies is shown in Table 2. The most frequent deficiencies are a lack of blindness, a lack of concealment, and insufficient random sequence production, but nine studies were considered of excellent quality (PEDro score of eight or more with low or unclear bias) that were included in this review, as described in Table 4.

Number Year Researchers Articles PEDro score Cochrane risk of biasness
1 2017 Kumar et al. [26] Efficacy of task oriented exercise program based on ergonomics on Cobb's angle and pulmonary function improvement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis- a randomized control trial 10 Low
2 2016 Park et al. [27] The effect of a core exercise program on Cobb angle and back muscle activity in male students with functional scoliosis: a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, comparative study 9 Low
3 2014 Monticone et al. [33] Active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial 9 Low
4 2019 Gao et al. [38] Could the clinical effectiveness be improved under the integration of orthotic intervention and scoliosis-specific exercise in managing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?: a randomized controlled trial study 9 Low
5 2018 Zheng et al. [7] Whether orthotic management and exercise are equally effective to the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in mainland China?: a randomized controlled trial study 9 Low
6 2019 Yagci and Yakut [39] Core stabilization exercises versus scoliosis-specific exercises in moderate idiopathic scoliosis treatment 9 Low
7 2019 Shah et al. [28] Ab1375-HPr effect of Schroth method and scientific exercise approach to scoliosis (SEAS) on the Cobb angle among the adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis a comparative study 8 Unclear
8 2017 Stark et al. [30] Physiotherapy combined with mechano-stimulation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis 8 Low
9 2017 Gür et al. [37] The effectiveness of core stabilization exercise in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled trial 8 Unclear

The sample size ranged from 25 to 110 for the total study population, which had an average age of 10-25 years. The inclusion criteria for the participants with AIS in the selected studies were primarily based on the Cobb angle. Table 5 provides the description of participant attributes of the selected studies.

Number Year of publication Reference study Sample size and characteristics Intervention/task for N1 Intervention/task for N2 Time of intervention Cobb angle Conclusion
Age Participants in each group Groups Pre-intervention Post-intervention Mean change
1 2017 Kumar et al. [26] 10-15 N1 (experimental group): 18 (seven females and 11 males); N2 (controlled group): 18 (eight females and 10 males) Exercises recommended in control group plus task-oriented exercises Spinal extension exercises, spinal strengthening of the convex side muscles, active self-correction, chest expansion exercises with emphasis on the concave side, and diaphragmatic breathing exercises 1 year N1 12.61±1.81 6.83±1.72 −5.77±1.35 The therapy protocol has been of benefit to the AIS patients who have increased their Cobb angle dramatically relative to AIS patients who do not follow the specific exercise protocol prescribed to the control group
N2 12.72±1.40 9.67±1.32 −3.05±0.80
2 2016 Park et al. [27] 20-25 N1 (home-based exercise program): 25 males; N2 (community group-based exercise program): 28 males Patients received an exercise video and were periodically telephoned by an instructor Completed all exercises together in the gymnasium under direct supervision of an instructor 10 weeks N1 9.12±2.26 7.07±3.01 −2.05±0.50 A 10-week core training program for both a home-based and a community-based organization lowered the Cobb angle
N2 9.58±2.66 4.33±2.45 −5.25±0.11
3 2014 Monticone et al. [33] >10 N1 (experimental group): 55 (39 females and 16 males); N2 (controlled group): 55 (41 females and 14 males) Active self-correction, task-oriented spinal exercises, and education Traditional spinal exercises 1 year N1 19.3±3.9 14.0±2.4 −5.3±0.6 A program of rehabilitation, including active self-adjusting, task-based exercises, and instruction, is useful for reducing the spinal deformation
N2 19.2±2.5 20.9±2.2 1.7±0.3
4 2019 Gao et al. [38] >10 N1 (orthosis combined with exercise group): 25, left after six months = 22 (18 females and four males); N2 (only orthotic intervention group): 25, left after six months = 23 (18 females and five males) Scientific exercise approach to scoliosis (SEAS), breathing exercise to improve lung capacity and rib mobilization, and TLSO TLSO for 23 hours in a day and one hour for personal hygiene 6 months N1 29.13±4.32 24.26±1.96 −4.87±0.24 A Cobb angle adjustment was best provided in patients with idiopathic scoliosis compared with an orthotic treatment only through orthotic intervention in conjunction with scoliosis-specific training
N2 28.64±3.91 26.59±3.57 −2.05±0.26
5 2018 Zheng et al. [7] 10-17 N1 (exercise group): 30, left after six months = 24 (22 females and seven males); N2 (bracing group): 30, left after six months = 29 (19 females and five males) SEAS TLSO for 23 hours in a day and one hour for personal hygiene 1 year N1 27.03±3.57 6 months: 25.45±3.60; 12 months: 24.79±4.36 6 months: −1.59±1.52; 12 months: −2.24±3.19 During intervention, the two treatments improved substantially with respect to spinal curvature parameters (Cobb angle and Cobb angle correction). Intergroup contrast findings also demonstrated that bracing in 12-month assessment was superior to capture correction in the Cobb angle
N2 28.00±3.60 6 months: 25.25±3.58; 12 months: 22.13±4.78 6 months: −2.75±4.68; 12 months: −5.88±6.37
6 2019 Yagci and Yakut [39] >12 N1 (scientific exercise approach to scoliosis): 15 females; N2 (core stabilization {CS} group): 15 females SEAS and TLSO for 23 hours in a day and one hour for personal hygiene Core stabilization exercise and TLSO for 23 hours in a day and one hour for personal hygiene 4 months N1 30.0±9.3 24.7±9.7 −5.3±2.2 Both treatment conditions, including CS bracing exercise or SEAS bracing exercise, decreased curve progression over the four-month span
N2 27.6±8.0 21.4±7.1 −6.2±0.9
7 2019 Shah et al. [28] 10-18 N1 (Schroth method of exercise group): 15 females/males; N2 (scientific exercise approach to scoliosis group {SEASG}): 15 females/males The SEG performed Schroth exercise, five times a week for seven weeks The SEASG performed scientific exercise, five times a week for seven weeks 7 weeks N1 31.2±5.20 27.4±5.17 −3.8±0.03 The significant changes in the pre- and post-Cobb angle measurements were seen by both SEG and SEASG. Intergroup findings indicated that SEG was more successful than SEASG in changing the Cobb angle
N2 31.33±5.26 29.4±5.9 −1.93±0.64
8 2017 Stark et al. [30] 10-17 N1 (scoliosis-specific exercise {SSE} group): 15 females; N2 (SSE program on a side-alternating whole-body vibration {sWBV} platform group): 15 females Regular scoliosis-specific exercises (SSE) Home-based SSE program on a side-alternating whole-body vibration (sWBV) platform 6 months N1 Data not available Data not available −0.3±3.7 Home-based SSE conducted on a six-month sWBV platform counteracts the progression of scoliosis in girls with AIS
N2 Data not available Data not available −2.3±3.8
9 2017 Gür et al. [37] 10-16 N1 (stabilization group): 12 (one male and 11 females); N2 (control group): 13 females Core stabilization exercises Traditional exercise programs and TLSO for 23 hours in a day and one hour for personal hygiene 10 weeks N1 Thoracic: 35±11.82; lumbar: 29±8.35; total: 56.75±25.70 Thoracic: 28.45±11.86; lumbar: 23.63±10.39; total: 45.64±25.44 Thoracic: −6.73±2.69; lumbar: −5.13±5.49; total: −9.82±6.13 In the CS and control classes, the overall Cobb angle decreased by nine degrees and two degrees on average, respectively. Comparisons of the Cobb angle between the groups showed substantially higher increases in the stabilization group than in the control group
N2 Thoracic: 31.42±6.97; lumbar: 34.33±2.2; total: 60.69±17.75 Thoracic: 33.88±7.34; lumbar: 32.63±10.2; total: 59.11±19.99 Thoracic: 0.63±4.34; lumbar: −1.75±3.45; total: −2.11±6.31

The Cobb angle was measured using radiographic techniques in each study, and the control group underwent standard treatment or a regular exercise regimen. Table 6 displays the training regimens and outcomes for the exercise, control, and other intervention groups in the included studies.

Number Reference study Cobb angle
Groups Pre-intervention Post-intervention Mean change P-value
1 Kumar et al., 2017 [26] N1 (experimental group) 12.61±1.81 6.83±1.72 −5.77±1.35 <0.001*
N2 (controlled group) 12.72±1.40 9.67±1.32 −3.05±0.80 <0.001*
2 Park et al., 2016 [27] N1 (home-based exercise program) 9.12±2.26 7.07±3.01 −2.05±0.50 <0.001*
N2 (community group-based exercise program) 9.58±2.66 4.33±2.45 −5.25±0.11 <0.001*
3 Monticone et al., 2014 [33] N1 (experimental group) 19.3±3.9 14.0±2.4 −5.3±0.6 <0.001*
N2 (controlled group) 19.2±2.5 20.9±2.2 1.7±0.3 <0.001*
4 Gao et al., 2019 [38] N1 (orthosis combined with exercise group) 29.13±4.32 24.26±1.96 −4.87±0.24 <0.001*
N2 (only orthotic intervention group) 28.64±3.91 26.59±3.57 −2.05±0.26 0.053
5 Zheng et al., 2018 [7] N1 (exercise group) 27.03±3.57  6 months: 25.45±3.60; 12 months: 24.79±4.36 6 months: −1.59±1.52; 12 months: −2.24±3.19 6 months: 0.122; 12 months: 0.03*
N2 (bracing group) 28.00±3.60 6 months: 25.25±3.58; 12 months: 22.13±4.78 6 months: −2.75±4.68; 12 months: −5.88±6.37 6 months: 0.062; 12 months: <0.001*
6 Yagci and Yakut, 2019 [39] N1 (scientific exercises approach to scoliosis) 30.0±9.3 24.7±9.7 −5.3±2.2 <0.001*
N2 (core stabilization group) 27.6±8.0 21.4±7.1 −6.2±0.9 <0.001*
7 Shah et al., 2019 [28] N1 (Schroth method of exercise group) 31.2±5.20 27.4±5.17 −3.8±0.03 <0.001*
N2 (scientific exercise approach to scoliosis group) 31.33±5.26 29.4±5.9 −1.93±0.64 <0.001*
8 Stark et al., 2017 [30] N1 (SSE group) Data not available Data not available −0.3±3.7 >0.05
N2 (SSE program on a sWBV platform group) Data not available Data not available −2.3±3.8 <0.001*
9 Gür et al., 2017 [37] N1 (stabilization group) Thoracic: 35±11.82; lumbar: 29±8.35; total: 56.75±25.70 Thoracic: 28.45±11.86; lumbar: 23.63±10.39; total: 45.64±25.44 Thoracic: −6.73±2.69; lumbar: −5.13±5.49; total: −9.82±6.13 Thoracic: <0.05; lumbar: <0.05; total: <0.05
N2 (control group) Thoracic: 31.42±6.97; lumbar: 34.33±2.2; total: 60.69±17.75 Thoracic: 33.88±7.34; lumbar: 32.63±10.2; total: 59.11±19.99 Thoracic: 0.63±4.34; lumbar: −1.75±3.45; total: −2.11±6.31 Thoracic: >0.05; lumbar: <0.05; total: >0.05

Discussion

This systematic review aimed to extract recently available evidence from 1 January 2010 to 15 January 2022 regarding the benefits of physiotherapy or exercise programs on the Cobb angle in AIS patients. The results suggest that physiotherapeutic interventions can lead to a decrease in the Cobb angle under different exercise or brace conditions. Still, the choice of physiotherapy intervention was somewhat arbitrary in all the studies. Nine studies were selected for review, which were considered to be of excellent quality (PEDro score of eight or more with low or unclear bias), and the analysis comprised a total of 411 participants (133 males and 278 females).

The PEDro score was nine out of 10 in five tests and eight in three studies. In the overall Cochrane measurement, seven trials showed a low risk of bias, and two had undetermined risks of bias since most of the investigations were not carried out by blinded therapists or assessors (Table 3).

The findings of this systematic study provide low-to-high-quality evidence in support of a medium-effect intervention in order to reduce Cobb angle in AIS patients. In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), 36 males and females between the ages of 10 and 15 were divided into two groups: an experimental group and a control group consisting of 18 participants each. While the subjects in the experimental group were accompanied for a year by task-oriented ergonomic exercises in addition to traditional exercises, those in the control group underwent spinal reinforcement, active self-correction, and breathing exercises. The Cobb angle decreased significantly before and after the intervention in both groups and was significantly higher in the task-oriented exercise groups than in the control group. This shows that exercise helps to avoid curve formation and reduces abnormalities in AIS [26].

Similarly, a trial recruited 53 patients in their sample involving only males aged 20-25 years that were randomly divided into two groups: a home-based exercise program group consisting of 25 patients and a community-based exercise program group consisting of 28 patients. The community-based group participated in all activities together, including the gymnasium, under the supervision of an instructor, whereas those in the home-based group received an activity video and phone calls from the instructor. The trial results demonstrated that Cobb angles were slightly smaller than the average in both groups during the 10-week exercise program, whereas the investigation predicted that the home-based exercise program would be less effective than the community-based group program, but there was no clinically relevant variation between them. This might be as a result of the trial's limited sample size or the lack of a control group. They also concluded that the patients who did not work out did not change, leading to ethical issues [27].

In another trial, 110 patients under the age of 10 (both males and females) were randomly assigned to two groups of 55 participants each: the experimental group, which underwent active self-correction, task-oriented spinal exercise, and education, and the control group, which followed conventional spinal exercise rehabilitation. Both groups held outpatient sessions once a week for 60 minutes and were also asked to continue the workout at home twice a week for one year in 30-minute sessions. The experimental group showed a Cobb angle decrease of more than five degrees, while the control group remained unchanged [33]. In patients with moderate AIS, the active self-correction and task-oriented exercise program were superior to standard Cobb angle reduction exercises, and its benefits persisted for at least a year after the completion of the intervention.

Additionally, 50 patients from an RCT that included both males and females under the age of 10 years were randomly split into two groups of 25 patients each. One group was given orthosis intervention (OI) in conjunction with exercise, and the other group was given OI alone. The study group conducted the scientific exercise approach to scoliosis (SEAS), and after six months of the intervention, patients in the orthosis paired with the exercise group were found to correct the Cobb angle more effectively than those in the orthosis control group [38]. In scoliosis management, different orthotic designs are available, varying in terms of the construction process, rigidity, system of action, and field of action. The Boston brace is an independently fitted orthosis with correction pads positioned on the curve convexity and comfort points, preventing development by adding a three-point spinal curvature pressure, which was discovered by Kalichman et al. [45]. However, it is important not to overlook the weakening of the back muscle caused by OI, as it is necessary to preserve spinal alignment and stabilize the posture of the body [46].

Similarly, in a trial consisting of 60 patients (both males and females) aged between 10 and 17 years, patients were randomly divided into an exercise group and an OI group consisting of 30 patients each. The SEAS was conducted by the study group, in which after 12 months of intervention, both approaches showed a substantial change in the Cobb angle. Bracing outperformed Cobb angle correction after a 12-month evaluation, based on the results of the intergroup comparison. However, there is no doubt that bracing has proven to be beneficial in preventing the deformity's progression and minimizing the need for surgery. Furthermore, because of their enhanced mental health, the patients in the exercise group were believed to have a more positive outlook on their physical appearance. On the other hand, owing to the tension of the bracing, the perception of the bracing community may be distorted [7].

A recent RCT enrolled a total of 30 patients, consisting of only females aged between 10 and 17 years, who were randomly assigned to the SEAS group and the core stabilization (CS) group consisting of 15 patients each. Along with the exercises, spinal braces were introduced in both groups. The patients were instructed to wear the brace for 23 hours daily and remove it only after exercise and for one hour each day while doing personal grooming. Both SEAS and CS exercise sessions lasted for 40 hours. In conclusion, the findings indicate that all patients had decreased thoracic and lumbar Cobb angles of the scoliotic curve and that both SEAS bracing and CS bracing exercises were effective in limiting curve development over a four-month period. These findings demonstrate that both treatment regimens were effective in preventing the formation of curves in individuals with mild curve AIS and that their effects on the Cobb angle were equivalent. In patients with AIS who were given only exercise recommendations, Negrini et al. found that SEAS exercises were more beneficial than conventional physiotherapy and also observed that SEAS was able to minimize corrective losses while wearing a brace in cases of intermediate curves [13]. The main target of scoliosis therapy is to enhance cosmetic appearance as the cosmetic deformity was greatly increased in both groups in this study. After four months of exercise and bracing therapy, a significant improvement in cosmetic deformity in both groups might be due to decreased curve amplitude and increased body symmetry [39].

Similarly, a trial enrolled 30 patients (both males and females) between 10 and 18 years of age, who were randomly allocated to the SEAS group and the Schroth exercise group (SEG) involving 15 patients each. Both the groups completed their respective exercises, five days a week for seven weeks, and after seven months of intervention, both the SEG and SEAS group showed significant improvements in pre- and post-Cobb angle measurements. Intergroup findings indicated that Schroth could be more effective than SEAS in modifying the mild-to-severe Cobb angle in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis [28].

Another study included 30 female patients with scoliosis aged between 10 and 17 years who received home-based programs and were randomly assigned to two groups: one received scoliosis-specific exercises (SSE) on a side-alternating whole-body vibration (sWBV) platform, while the other received regular SSE. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the Cobb angle was measured at the beginning and after six months along with reporting the onset of menarche in a subgroup study. This study concluded that home-based SSE performed on the sWBV platform for six months prevents females with AIS from developing scoliosis, especially before menarche. The discrepancy between the two groups was statistically significant, and the clinical significance of the main curve was as follows: 20% of the sWBV increased by more than or equal to five, 75% was stable, and 5% decreased. The test group improved by 0%, stabilized by 8%, and decreased by 11%. The subgroup study also revealed the most scientifically important improvement in the before-menarche subgroup [30].

In a previous trial that enrolled 25 patients (one male and 24 females) between the ages of 10 and 16 years, patients were randomly assigned to the stabilization group (SG) (n=12) and the control group (CG) (n=13). The CG underwent traditional scoliosis exercise programs, which included breathing exercises, posture preparation, spinal stability exercises, stretching exercises for the affected muscles (especially for the concave side of the curve), and general strengthening exercises for the affected muscles (especially for the convex side of the curve). The SG underwent central stabilization exercises in addition to the standard recovery protocol. The analysis concluded that the overall Cobb angle decreased by an average of nine degrees and two degrees in SG and CG, respectively. In contrast, intergroup analysis of the Cobb angle demonstrated a far greater change in the SG than in the CG [37].

In the current systematic review, four studies compared SEAS exercises with CG or other intervention groups and stated that SEAS exercises were more beneficial in controlling conditions for the reduction of spinal deformities and the development of scoliosis. This review included five more trials that evaluated five different exercise regimes with standard spinal exercises, with most of these experimental studies showing a substantial reduction in Cobb angle. However, this study had significant drawbacks, including the inclusion criteria not being explicitly stated in the included studies and the fact that the majority of the included trials were not randomized. Furthermore, the latest published literature has revealed substantial limits on the absence of blinding, masked allocations, and differences in exercise protocols. Additionally, various forms of exercise have different intensities with different outcomes, and the existence of heterogeneity in exercise procedures prevents definitive conclusions. For instance, the overall period of intervention varied from 10 weeks to 12 months, and the sample size of the included studies ranged from 25 to 110. Another drawback of the current study is that it only included studies written in English, which may have biased the selection process, and the majority of the studies did not specify which exercises were included in the standard protocol.

Conclusions

Idiopathic scoliosis treatment is complex, and therefore, a thorough analysis of the deformity and each patient's clinical picture should be the key point in the conservative treatment of AIS. In terms of the efficiency of PSSE, it is found that SEAS exercises are more beneficial at improving the Cobb angle and preventing aggravation from brace wear than standard physical therapy. In addition, Schroth method offers useful information for treating and preventing scoliosis. Although the three approaches, SEAS, Schroth, and CS, seem to address the major bulges, they also improve the quality of treatment and life of the patients by stabilizing the results and reducing the progress of scoliosis. In conclusion, the severity of this deformation should, however, serve as yet another motivator for the therapeutic regimen and clinical judgment of therapists rather than a treatment-blocking factor, according to scientifically based knowledge and its implementation in the treatment of AIS.

According to the findings of the included studies, a therapeutic regimen is more effective than controls in lowering the Cobb angle in patients with AIS. Additionally, it demonstrates that bracing while exercising will produce superior Cobb angle reduction benefits than exercise alone. However, the validity of these findings is constrained by the variability of the exercise protocols and inadequate methodological quality.


References

  1. Altaf F, Gibson A, Dannawi Z, Noordeen H: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMJ. 2013, 346:f2508. 10.1136/bmj.f2508
  2. Blevins K, Battenberg A, Beck A: Management of scoliosis. Adv Pediatr. 2018, 65:249-66. 10.1016/j.yapd.2018.04.013
  3. Hresko MT: Clinical practice. Idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2013, 368:834-41. 10.1056/NEJMcp1209063
  4. Konieczny MR, Senyurt H, Krauspe R: Epidemiology of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. J Child Orthop. 2013, 7:3-9. 10.1007/s11832-012-0457-4
  5. Trobisch P, Suess O, Schwab F: Idiopathic scoliosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010, 107:875-83. 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0875
  6. Du Q, Zhou X, Negrini S, Chen N, Yang X, Liang J, Sun K: Scoliosis epidemiology is not similar all over the world: a study from a scoliosis school screening on Chongming Island (China). BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016, 17:303. 10.1186/s12891-016-1140-6
  7. Zheng Y, Dang Y, Yang Y, et al.: Whether orthotic management and exercise are equally effective to the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in mainland China?: a randomized controlled trial study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018, 43:E494-503. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002412
  8. Wu A, March L, Zheng X, et al.: Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann Transl Med. 2020, 8:299. 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175
  9. Langensiepen S, Semler O, Sobottke R, Fricke O, Franklin J, Schönau E, Eysel P: Measuring procedures to determine the Cobb angle in idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Eur Spine J. 2013, 22:2360-71. 10.1007/s00586-013-2693-9
  10. Scoliometer. (2011). Accessed: 15 September 2022: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/scoliometer#:~:text=The%20scoliometer%20(also%20called%20....
  11. Ha AS, Beauchamp EC: Editorial on " screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: US preventive services task force recommendation statement". J Spine Surg. 2018, 4:812-6. 10.21037/jss.2018.10.04
  12. Bettany-Saltikov J, Weiss HR, Chockalingam N, Kandasamy G, Arnell T: A comparison of patient-reported outcome measures following different treatment approaches for adolescents with severe idiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review. Asian Spine J. 2016, 10:1170-94. 10.4184/asj.2016.10.6.1170
  13. Negrini S, Minozzi S, Bettany-Saltikov J, et al.: Braces for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015, CD006850. 10.1002/14651858.CD006850.pub3
  14. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB: Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med. 2013, 369:1512-21. 10.1056/NEJMoa1307337
  15. Focarile FA, Bonaldi A, Giarolo MA, Ferrari U, Zilioli E, Ottaviani C: Effectiveness of nonsurgical treatment for idiopathic scoliosis. Overview of available evidence. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1991, 16:395-401. 10.1097/00007632-199104000-00001
  16. Maruyama T, Grivas TB, Kaspiris A: Effectiveness and outcomes of brace treatment: a systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011, 27:26-42. 10.3109/09593985.2010.503989
  17. Helfenstein A, Lankes M, Ohlert K, Varoga D, Hahne HJ, Ulrich HW, Hassenpflug J: The objective determination of compliance in treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with spinal orthoses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006, 31:339-44. 10.1097/01.brs.0000197412.70050.0d
  18. Mak I, Lou E, Raso JV, et al.: The effect of time on qualitative compliance in brace treatment for AIS. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2008, 32:136-44. 10.1080/03093640802015839
  19. Rigo M, Reiter Ch, Weiss HR: Effect of conservative management on the prevalence of surgery in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Pediatr Rehabil. 2003, 6:209-14. 10.1080/13638490310001642054
  20. Liu D, Yang Y, Yu X, Yang J, Xuan X, Yang J, Huang Z: Effects of specific exercise therapy on adolescent patients with idiopathic scoliosis: a prospective controlled cohort study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020, 45:1039-46. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003451
  21. Fusco C, Zaina F, Atanasio S, Romano M, Negrini A, Negrini S: Physical exercises in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an updated systematic review. Physiother Theory Pract. 2011, 27:80-114. 10.3109/09593985.2010.533342
  22. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al.: Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003, 83:713-21.
  23. Wallis JA, Taylor NF: Pre-operative interventions (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis awaiting joint replacement surgery--a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011, 19:1381-95. 10.1016/j.joca.2011.09.001
  24. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (ed): John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ; 2019.
  25. Xie CX, Machado GC: Clinimetrics: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). J Physiother. 2021, 67:66. 10.1016/j.jphys.2020.07.003
  26. Kumar A, Kumar S, Sharma V, et al.: Efficacy of task oriented exercise program based on ergonomics on Cobb’s angle and pulmonary function improvement in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis- a randomized control trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017, 11:YC01-4. 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27497.10335
  27. Park YH, Park YS, Lee YT, Shin HS, Oh MK, Hong J, Lee KY: The effect of a core exercise program on Cobb angle and back muscle activity in male students with functional scoliosis: a prospective, randomized, parallel-group, comparative study. J Int Med Res. 2016, 44:728-34. 10.1177/0300060516639750
  28. Shah J, Priya TP, Arumugam P, et al.: Ab1375-HPr effect of Schroth method and scientific exercise approach to scoliosis (SEAS) on the Cobb angle among the adolescent with idiopathic scoliosis a comparative study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019, 78:2151-2. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.7716
  29. Noll C, Steitz V, Daentzer D: Influence of proprioceptive insoles on spinal curvature in patients with slight idiopathic scoliosis. Technol Health Care. 2017, 25:143-51. 10.3233/THC-161271
  30. Stark C, Langensiepen S, Sobottke R, et al.: Physiotherapy combined with mechano-stimulation in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017, 98:93. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.297
  31. Schreiber S, Parent EC, Moez EK, et al.: The effect of Schroth exercises added to the standard of care on the quality of life and muscle endurance in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis-an assessor and statistician blinded randomized controlled trial: "SOSORT 2015 award winner". Scoliosis. 2015, 10:24. 10.1186/s13013-015-0048-5
  32. Wnuk B, Durmala J, Dzierzega J, Piotrowski J, Walusiak M: The short-term effects of simultaneous treatment using two different methods of physiotherapy in the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a pilot study. Scoliosis. 2009, 4:O30. 10.1186/1748-7161-4-S2-O30
  33. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Ferrante S: Active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2014, 23:1204-14. 10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y
  34. Trzcińska S, Nowak Z: Analysis of scoliosis deformation in the Zebris computer study as an assessment of the effectiveness of the FED method in the treatment of idiopathic scolioses. Pol Merkur Lekarski. 2020, 48:174-8.
  35. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, et al.: Adults with idiopathic scoliosis improve disability after motor and cognitive rehabilitation: results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2016, 25:3120-9. 10.1007/s00586-016-4528-y
  36. Schreiber S, Parent EC, Hill DL, Hedden DM, Moreau MJ, Southon SC: Patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis perceive positive improvements regardless of change in the Cobb angle - results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 6-month Schroth intervention added to standard care and standard care alone. SOSORT 2018 award winner. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2019, 20:319. 10.1186/s12891-019-2695-9
  37. Gür G, Ayhan C, Yakut Y: The effectiveness of core stabilization exercise in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled trial. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2017, 41:303-10. 10.1177/0309364616664151
  38. Gao C, Zheng Y, Fan C, Yang Y, He C, Wong M: Could the clinical effectiveness be improved under the integration of orthotic intervention and scoliosis-specific exercise in managing adolescent idiopathic scoliosis?: a randomized controlled trial study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019, 98:642-8. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001160
  39. Yagci G, Yakut Y: Core stabilization exercises versus scoliosis-specific exercises in moderate idiopathic scoliosis treatment. Prosthet Orthot Int. 2019, 43:301-8. 10.1177/0309364618820144
  40. Kuru T, Yeldan İ, Dereli EE, Özdinçler AR, Dikici F, Çolak İ: The efficacy of three-dimensional Schroth exercises in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016, 30:181-90. 10.1177/0269215515575745
  41. Langensiepen S, Stark C, Sobottke R, et al.: Home-based vibration assisted exercise as a new treatment option for scoliosis - a randomised controlled trial. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2017, 17:259-67.
  42. Alves de Araújo ME, Bezerra da Silva E, Bragade Mello D, Cader SA, Shiguemi Inoue Salgado A, Dantas EH: The effectiveness of the Pilates method: reducing the degree of non-structural scoliosis, and improving flexibility and pain in female college students. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012, 16:191-8. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2011.04.002
  43. Abbott A, Möller H, Gerdhem P: CONTRAIS: CONservative TReatment for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013, 14:261. 10.1186/1471-2474-14-261
  44. Atici Y, Aydin CG, Atici A, Buyukkuscu MO, Arikan Y, Balioglu MB: The effect of Kinesio taping on back pain in patients with Lenke type 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2017, 51:191-6. 10.1016/j.aott.2017.01.002
  45. Kalichman L, Kendelker L, Bezalel T: Bracing and exercise-based treatment for idiopathic scoliosis. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2016, 20:56-64. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.04.007
  46. Danielsson AJ, Romberg K, Nachemson AL: Spinal range of motion, muscle endurance, and back pain and function at least 20 years after fusion or brace treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a case-control study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006, 31:275-83. 10.1097/01.brs.0000197652.52890.71

Review article
peer-reviewed

Physiotherapy Interventions for Preventing Spinal Curve Progression in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review


Author Information

Tabish Fahim Corresponding Author

Department of Physiotherapy, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) School of Physiotherapy, Aurangabad, IND

Sakshi Virsanikar

Department of Rehabilitation, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) School of Physiotherapy, Aurangabad, IND

Diya Mangharamani

Department of Rehabilitation, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) School of Physiotherapy, Aurangabad, IND

Sabih N. Khan

Department of Cardiorespiratory Physiotherapy, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) School of Physiotherapy, Aurangabad, IND

Shrikant Mhase

Department of Community Physiotherapy, Mahatma Gandhi Mission (MGM) School of Physiotherapy, Aurangabad, IND

Laxmikant Umate

Department of Research and Development, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Wardha, IND


Ethics Statement and Conflict of Interest Disclosures

Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.



Review article
peer-reviewed

Physiotherapy Interventions for Preventing Spinal Curve Progression in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Systematic Review


Figures etc.

SIQ
8.8
RATED BY 2 READERS
CONTRIBUTE RATING

Scholarly Impact Quotient™ (SIQ™) is our unique post-publication peer review rating process. Learn more here.