首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Evidence-Based Spine-Care Journal >Efficacy of bracing versus observation in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis
【2h】

Efficacy of bracing versus observation in the treatment of idiopathic scoliosis

机译:支撑与观察治疗特发性脊柱侧凸的疗效

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Study design: Systematic review.>Objectives: (1) Does brace treatment compared with observation of curves lead to lower rates of surgery and failure for patients with idiopathic scoliosis? (2) Does brace treatment compared with observation of curves lead to better quality of life outcomes for patients with idiopathic scoliosis? (3) Does brace treatment compared with observation of curves lead to improved curve angle for patients with idiopathic scoliosis?>Methods: A systematic review of the English-language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and December 2010. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies comparing brace treatment with observation of curves in patients with idiopathic scoliosis. Two independent reviewers assessed the strength of evidence using the GRADE criteria assessing quality, quantity, and consistency of results. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.>Results: We identified eight studies meeting our inclusion criteria. The pooled studies comparing surgical rates between observation and brace treatment showed no statistical significance (P = .65). One study showed a statistically significant difference in failure rate between observation (45%) and brace (15%) treatment (P < .001). Findings with respect to posttreatment quality of life at 2 years were inconsistent. Two studies favored the brace group, and one the observation group using the SRS-22 and Quality of Life Profile for Spine Deformities (QLPSD) measures. Two of three studies reporting pretreatment and posttreatment curve angles demonstrated a treatment effect favoring bracing; however, statistical significance for these treatment effects could not be calculated. One study described a treatment effect favoring observation but the differences were not statistically significant (P = .26).>Conclusion: This systematic review identified and summarized only the highest level of evidence by limiting to comparison studies. Case-series were not included. This allowed for comparisons among the same patient populations. Findings with respect to surgical rates, quality of life, and change in curve angle demonstrate either no significant differences or inconsistent findings favoring one treatment or the other. If bracing does not cause a positive treatment effect, then its rejection will lead to significant savings for healthcare providers and purchasers. Given the very low to low level of evidence and inconsistent findings, a randomized trial is necessary to determine if bracing should be recommended.
机译:>研究设计:系统评价。>目的:(1)特发性脊柱侧凸患者的支架治疗与曲线观察相比是否会降低手术率和失败率? (2)特发性脊柱侧弯患者的支架治疗与曲线观察相比是否能改善生活质量? (3)特发性脊柱侧凸患者的矫正治疗与弯道观察相比是否能改善弯道角度?>方法:对1970年至2010年12月间发表的文章进行了系统的英语文献综述搜索电子数据库和关键文章的参考文献清单,以鉴定将特发性脊柱侧凸患者的支架治疗与曲线观察进行比较的研究。两名独立审稿人使用GRADE标准评估证据的质量,数量和结果的一致性,以评估证据的强度。通过共识解决了分歧。>结果:我们确定了八项符合纳入标准的研究。比较观察和支架治疗之间的手术率的汇总研究无统计学意义(P = .65)。一项研究表明,观察治疗(45%)和支架治疗(15%)的失败率有统计学差异(P <0.001)。关于治疗2年后生活质量的发现不一致。有两项研究偏爱支架组,而一项观察组则使用SRS-22和脊柱畸形生活质量(QLPSD)量度。在三项研究中,有两项报告了治疗前和治疗后的弯曲角度,它们表明治疗效果有利于支撑。但是,无法计算出这些治疗效果的统计学意义。一项研究描述了一种有利于观察的治疗效果,但差异无统计学意义(P = .26)。>结论: by通过限制于比较研究,本系统评价仅鉴定和总结了最高水平的证据。不包括案例系列。这允许在相同患者人群之间进行比较。关于手术率,生活质量和弯曲角度变化的发现表明,对一种治疗或另一种治疗无明显差异或不一致的发现。如果支撑不能产生积极的治疗效果,则拒绝支撑将为医疗保健提供者和购买者节省大量资金。鉴于证据水平从低到低以及发现不一致,必须进行随机试验以确定是否应推荐使用支架。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号