Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 12/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Review

Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review

Authors: Maciej Płaszewski, Josette Bettany-Saltikov

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 12/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Recommendations addressing school screening for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis are contradictory. Consequently a critical evaluation of the methodological quality of available systematic reviews, including those upon which these recommendations are based, was conducted.

Methods

Articles meeting the minimal criteria to be considered a systematic review were included for a best evidence synthesis, umbrella review of secondary studies. The primary outcome measure was “any recommendation addressing the continuation, or not, of school screening programs”. Multiple general bibliographic databases, guideline registries, as well as websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology of included reviews. Venn diagrams were created to examine potential overlaps across included papers within different reviews.

Results

Six reviews undertaken between 2002 and 2011, scored as moderate to low quality, were included. The 2012 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation against screening was found to be based on an outdated (2004) low-quality review, whilst two higher quality and more recent (2009 and 2010) reviews support the continuation of school screening programs.

Conclusions

As the existing recommendations supporting screening are based on moderate quality evidence whilst the recommendations against screening are based on low-quality evidence, the latter recommendations appear to be both unconvincing and methodologically invalid.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
This is a review which “focuses on a broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results” identifies component reviews, but not primary studies, provides quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves component reviews, with graphical and tabular synthesis with narrative commentary, and analysis of what is known, what remains unknown, and with recommendations for practice and future research, [52].
 
Literature
1.
2.
Labelle H, Richards SB, De Kleuver M, Grivas TB, Luk KD, Wong HK, Thometz J, Beauséjour M, Turgeon J, Fong DY (2013) Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: an information statement by the scoliosis research society international task force. Scoliosis 8:17PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
3.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2002) Child health screening and surveillance: a critical review of the evidence. Centre for Community Child Health, Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne
4.
Linker BA (2012) A dangerous curve. The role of history in America’s scoliosis screening programs. Am J Public Health 102:1106–1116CrossRef
5.
Taylor TK, Bushell G, Ghosh P (1978) School screening for scoliosis: a Pandora’s box. Aust N Z J Surg 48:2–3PubMedCrossRef
6.
7.
Winter RB, Lonstein JB (1997) To brace or not to brace: the true value of school screening. Spine 22:1283–1284PubMedCrossRef
8.
Dickson RA, Weinstein SL (1999) Bracing (and screening)—yes or no? J Bone Jt Surg Br 81:193–198CrossRef
9.
Winter RB, Banta JV, Engler G, Scoliosis Research Society (1995) Screening for scoliosis. JAMA 273:185–186PubMedCrossRef
10.
Sox HC Jr, Woolf SH, US Preventive Services Task Force (1995) In reply (Screening for scoliosis). JAMA 273:186CrossRef
11.
12.
Bunge EM, de Koning HJ (2006) Selective screening for scoliosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 445:277–278PubMed
13.
Bunge EM, Juttmann RE, van Biezen FC, Creemers H, Hazebroek-Kampschreur AAJM, Luttmer BCF, Wiegersma A, de Koning H, for the Netherlands Evaluation Study for Screening for Scoliosis (NESCIO) group (2008) Estimating the effectiveness of screening for scoliosis: a case-control study. Pediatrics 121:9–14PubMedCrossRef
14.
Richards BS, Beaty JH, Thompson GH, Willis RB (2008) Estimating the effectiveness of screening for scoliosis. Pediatrics 121:1296–1297PubMedCrossRef
15.
School Health Connections/Healthy Start Office (2007) The Standards for Scoliosis Screening in California Public Schools. California Department of Education
16.
17.
18.
Negrini S, Aulisa L, Ferraro C, Fraschini P, Masiero S, Simonazzi P, Tedeschi C, Venturin A (2005) Italian guidelines on rehabilitation treatment of adolescents with scoliosis or other spinal deformities. Eura Medicophys 41:183–201PubMed
19.
20.
21.
22.
US Preventive Services Task Force (2004) Screening for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents: recommendation statement. http://​www.​ahrq.​gov. Accessed 15 Jan 2013
23.
American Academy of Family Physicians (2012) Summary of recommendations for clinical preventive services. American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), Leawood, p 18
24.
25.
26.
Canadian Task Force on Periodic Health Examination (1979) The periodic health examination. CMA J 121:1193–1254
27.
US Preventive Services Task Force (1993) Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: policy statement. JAMA 269:2664–2666CrossRef
28.
29.
30.
31.
Richards BS, Vitale MG (2008) Screening for idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. An information statement. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:195–198CrossRef
32.
Fong DY, Lee CF, Cheung KM, Cheng JC, Ng BK, Lam TP, Mak KH, Yip PS, Luk KD (2010) A meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of school scoliosis screening. Spine 35:1061–1071PubMed
33.
Larson N (2011) Early onset scoliosis: what the primary care provider needs to know and implications for practice. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 23:392–403PubMedCrossRef
34.
Wilkinson J, Bass C, Diem S, Gravley A, et al (2012) Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Preventive Services for Children and Adolescents. Bloomington (MN): Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (ICSI); p 87 http://​bit.​ly.​PrevServKids0912​
35.
Sabirin J, Bakri R, Buang SN, Abdullah AT, Shapie A (2010) School scoliosis screening programme—a systematic review. Med J Malaysia 65:261–267PubMed
36.
37.
Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M (2011) Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 11:15PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
38.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
39.
[No authors listed] (2005) Glossary of terms in the cochrane Collaboration. version 4.2.5., The cochrane collaboration
40.
Connor Gorber S, Singh H, Pottie K, Jaramillo A, Tonelli M (2012) Process for guideline development by the reconstituted Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 184:1575–1581PubMedCrossRef
41.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
42.
Popovic I, Windsor B, Jordan V, Showell M, Shea B, Farquhar CM (2012) Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of two different approaches. PLoS One 7(12):e50403CrossRef
43.
Sox HC Jr, Berwick DM, Berg AO et al (1993) Screening for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: review article. JAMA 269:2667–2672CrossRef
44.
Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, Teutsch SM, Atkins D (2001) Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 20(3 Suppl):21–35PubMedCrossRef
45.
46.
47.
48.
[No authors listed] (2002) Child Health Screening and Surveillance: Supplementary Document—Context And Next Steps. The Child and Youth Health Inter-governmental Partnership, National Public Health Partnership. http://​www.​nphp.​gov.​au. Accessed 31 May 2013
49.
Lee CF (2009) School screening and curve progression in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Dissertation, University of Hong Kong
50.
Beauséjour M, Goulet L, Parent S, Feldman DE, Turgeon I, Roy-Beaudry M, Sosa JF, Labelle H; Members of the Quebec Scoliosis Society and of the Canadian Paediatric Spinal Deformities Study Group (2013) The effectiveness of scoliosis screening programs: methods for systematic review and expert panel recommendations formulation. Scoliosis 8:12PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
51.
52.
Grant MJ, Booth A (2009) A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associates methodologies. HILJ 26:91–108
53.
Ioannidis JPA (2009) Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. CMAJ 181:488–493PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
54.
Moe RH, Haavardsholm EA, Christie A, Jamtvedt G, Dahm KT, Hagen KB (2007) Effectiveness of nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for hip osteoarthritis: an umbrella review of high quality systematic reviews. Phys Ther 87:1716–1727PubMedCrossRef
55.
Rowe DE, Bernstein SM, Riddick MF, Adler F, Emans JB, Gardner-Bonneau D (1997) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of non-operative treatments for idiopathic scoliosis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:664–674
56.
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford, UK (2011) Levels of evidence for primary research question. www.​cebm.​net. Accessed 15 May 2013
57.
58.
Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, Siu A, Teutsch S, Whitlock E, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2007) Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med 147:117–122PubMedCrossRef
59.
Barton MB, Miller T, Wolff T, Petitti D, LeFevre M, Sawaya G, Yawn B, Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Harris R, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (2007) How to read the new recommendation statement: methods update from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 147(2):123–127PubMedCrossRef
60.
61.
Moher D, Cook D, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF, for the QUORUM Group (2009) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUORUM statement. Lancet 354:1896–1900CrossRef
62.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB, for the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology. A proposal for reporting. JAMA 283:2008–2012CrossRef
63.
IOM (Institute of Medicine) (2011) Standards for reporting systematic reviews. In: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, Washington DC, Chapter 5
64.
Hresco MT (2013) Idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. N Engl J Med 368:834–841CrossRef
65.
Altaf F, Gibson A, Dannawi Z, Noordeen H (2013) Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. BMJ 2013(346):f2508CrossRef
66.
67.
Bettany-Saltikov J, Weiss HR, Chockalingam N, Taranu R, Srinivas S, Hogg J, Whittaker V (2013) Kalyan RV (2013) Surgical versus non-surgical interventions in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7:CD010663
Metadata
Title
Are current scoliosis school screening recommendations evidence-based and up to date? A best evidence synthesis umbrella review
Authors
Maciej Płaszewski
Josette Bettany-Saltikov
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 12/2014
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-014-3307-x

Other articles of this Issue 12/2014

European Spine Journal 12/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Altered head orientation patterns in children with idiopathic scoliosis in conditions with sensory conflict

Erratum

Erratum to: Parameters influencing the outcome after total disc replacement at the lumbosacral junction. Part 2: distraction and posterior translation lead to clinical failure after a mean follow-up of 5 years

Original Article

Predictors of kyphotic deformity in osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: a radiological study

Original Article

A new approach to corpus callosum anomalies in idiopathic scoliosis using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging

Open Operating Theatre (OOT)

Cervical laminoplasty

Open Operating Theatre (OOT)

Percutaneous, cement-augmented reposition and stabilisation of burst fractures T9 and T12 in osteoporosis