Meta-analysis of the effect of different types of exercise on the effectiveness of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis


Abstract

Background: To systematically evaluate and analyse the effect of different exercise types on the intervention of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. The improvement effect was influenced by which type of exercise had a positive significance in improving Cobb angle (Cobb angle), angle of trunk rotation (ATR), and quality of life (QoL).

Methodology: Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Wanfang, Wipu, and China Knowledge Network databases were searched from the time of library construction to June 2024, and randomised controlled trials of literature screening of the health effects of different types of exercise on adolescents with scoliosis were conducted independently by 2 experimenters. PEDro was used for quality assessment, RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata 17.0 were used for Meta-analysis and publication bias test, respectively, and GRADEPro was used for quality of evidence evaluation of outcome indicators. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were used as effect statistics.

Results: A total of 35 papers (1864 patients) with 9 different exercise types were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed that for Cobb's Corner, resistance exercise [I 2 =0%, SMD=-0.35, 95% CI(-0.69,-0.02), P=0.04], Pilates [I 2 =0%, SMD=-0.72, 95% CI(- 1.02,-0.41), P<0.01], and suspension exercise (Sling exercise training (SET) [I 2 =0%, SMD=-0.70, 95% CI (-1.01,-0.39), P<0.01], exercise was more effective in adolescents with adolescent Cobb's angle in idiopathic scoliosis, however, SET training's effect values were close and significant. For ATR, Pilates [I 2 =0%, SMD=0.12, 95% CI (-0.37,0.61), P=0.63] had a better effect on the marker ATR when it was performed. For QoL, core stability training [I 2 =32%, SMD=1.00, 95% CI (0.36,1.63), P< 0.01] had a better effect on marker QoL.

Conclusions: Thirty-five papers were included in this study, with a mean PEDro score of 6.2, and the quality of the literature was good. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses of QoL, ATR, and Cobb's Corner metrics failed to identify sources of article heterogeneity, which is a limitation. Publication bias tests for QoL, ATR, and Cobb angle indicators suggested that there was no significant publication bias. Therefore, intermediate quality of evidence was given for QoL, ATR, and Cobb angle indicators. Different types of exercise have more significant improvement effects on QoL, ATR, and Cobb angle indicators, which can provide evidence-based medical evidence for clinical rehabilitation of adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].