Which interventions may improve bracing compliance in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: PloS one 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271612-e0271612
• Main Authors: Li, Xue, Huo, Zhaohua, Hu, Zongshan, Lam, Tsz Ping, Cheng, Jack Chun Yiu, Chung, Vincent Chi-ho, Yip, Benjamin Hon Kei
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescents; Bias; Biology and Life Sciences; Care and treatment; Clinical trials; Diagnosis; Engineering and Technology; Evaluation; Health risks; Intervention; Medicine and Health Sciences; Meta-analysis; Monitoring; Observational studies; Patient compliance; Patients; Physical Sciences; Quality of life; Research and Analysis Methods; Risk assessment; Scoliosis; Standard deviation; Subgroups; Surgery; Systematic review; Teenagers; Telemedicine
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271612

This review aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the effects of interventions in improving bracing compliance among adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) patients. Eight databases were searched from their inception to April 2022. The eligibility criteria included controlled studies that used any type of intervention to enhance bracing compliance in braced AIS patients. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data based on the PICO (participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome) framework. Quality appraisal of included studies was performed using GRADE (overall assessment), and the risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane RoB Tool 2 for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and ROBINS-I for non-RCT studies. The primary outcome was bracing compliance and secondary outcomes included Cobb Angle and measurements for quality of life. Six eligible studies involving 523 participants were included. All studies were evaluated as low or very low quality with a high risk of bias. Four types of interventions were identified, including sensor monitoring (n = 2, RCTs), auto-adjusted brace (n = 1, RCT), more intensive or collaborated medical care (n = 2), and psychosocial intervention (n = 1). A meta-analysis of 215 patients from the three RCTs suggested that the compliance-enhancing intervention group had 2.92 more bracing hours per day than the usual care control (95%CI [1.12, 4.72], P = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, sensor monitoring significantly improved bracing wearing quantity compared to usual care (3.47 hours/day, 95%CI [1.48, 5.47], P = 0.001), while other aforementioned interventions did not show a significant superiority. Compliance-enhancing interventions may be favorable in preventing curve progression and promoting quality of life, but the improvements cannot be clarified according to limited evidence. In conclusion, although the results of this study suggested that sensor monitoring may be the most promising approach, limited high-quality evidence precludes reliable conclusions. Future well-designed RCTs are required to confirm the actual benefit of compliance-improving interventions in clinical practice.