BackgroundThe International Scientific Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) produced its first guidelines in 2005 and renewed them in 2011. Recently published high-quality clinical trials on the effect of conservative treatment approaches (braces and exercises) for idiopathic scoliosis prompted us to update the last guidelines’ version. The objective was to align the guidelines with the new scientific evidence to assure faster knowledge transfer into clinical practice of conservative treatment for idiopathic scoliosis (CTIS).MethodsPhysicians, researchers and allied health practitioners working in the area of CTIS were involved in the development of the 2016 guidelines. Multiple literature reviews reviewing the evidence on CTIS (assessment, bracing, physiotherapy, physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) and other CTIS) were conducted. Documents, recommendations and practical approach flow charts were developed using a Delphi procedure. The process was completed with the Consensus Session held during the first combined SOSORT/IRSSD Meeting held in Banff, Canada, in May 2016.ResultsThe contents of the new 2016 guidelines include the following: background on idiopathic scoliosis, description of CTIS approaches for various populations with flow-charts for clinical practice, as well as literature reviews and recommendations on assessment, bracing, PSSE and other CTIS. The present guidelines include a total of 68 recommendations divided into following topics: bracing (n = 25), PSSE to prevent scoliosis progression during growth (n = 12), PSSE during brace treatment and surgical therapy (n = 6), other conservative treatments (n = 2), respiratory function and exercises (n = 3), general sport activities (n = 6); and assessment (n = 14). According to the agreed strength and level of evidence rating scale, there were 2 recommendations on bracing and 1 recommendation on PSSE that reached level of recommendation “I” and level of evidence “II”. Three recommendations reached strength of recommendation A based on the level of evidence I (2 for bracing and one for assessment); 39 recommendations reached strength of recommendation B (20 for bracing, 13 for PSSE, and 6 for assessment).The number of paper for each level of evidence for each treatment is shown in Table 8.ConclusionThe 2016 SOSORT guidelines were developed based on the current evidence on CTIS. Over the last 5 years, high-quality evidence has started to emerge, particularly in the areas of efficacy of bracing (one large multicentre trial) and PSSE (three single-centre randomized controlled trials). Several grade A recommendations were presented. Despite the growing high-quality evidence, the heterogeneity of the study protocols limits generalizability of the recommendations. There is a need for standardization of research methods of conservative treatment effectiveness, as recognized by SOSORT and the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS) non-operative management Committee.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version o...

No abstract

No abstract

The efficacy of convalescent plasma for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Although most randomized controlled trials have shown negative results, uncontrolled studies have suggested that the antibody content could influence patient outcomes. We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial of convalescent plasma for adults with COVID-19 receiving oxygen within 12 d of respiratory symptom onset (NCT04348656). Patients were allocated 2:1 to 500 ml of convalescent plasma or standard of care. The composite primary outcome was intubation or death by 30 d. Exploratory analyses of the effect of convalescent plasma antibodies on the primary outcome was assessed by logistic regression. The trial was terminated at 78% of planned enrollment after meeting stopping criteria for futility. In total, 940 patients were randomized, and 921 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Intubation or death occurred in 199/614 (32.4%) patients in the convalescent plasma arm and 86/307 (28.0%) patients in the standard of care arm—relative risk (RR) = 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.43, P = 0.18). Patients in the convalescent plasma arm had more serious adverse events (33.4% versus 26.4%; RR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.02–1.57, P = 0.034). The antibody content significantly modulated the therapeutic effect of convalescent plasma. In multivariate analysis, each standardized log increase in neutralization or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity independently reduced the potential harmful effect of plasma (odds ratio (OR) = 0.74, 95% CI 0.57–0.95 and OR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50–0.87, respectively), whereas IgG against the full transmembrane spike protein increased it (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05). Convalescent plasma did not reduce the risk of intubation or death at 30 d in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Transfusion of convalescent plasma with unfavorable antibody profiles could be associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to standard care.

BackgroundIn North America, care recommendations for adolescents with small idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) curves include observation or bracing. Schroth scoliosis-specific exercises have demonstrated promising results on various outcomes in uncontrolled studies. This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to determine the effect of Schroth exercises combined with the standard of care on quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes and back muscle endurance (BME) compared to standard of care alone in patients with AIS.Material and MethodsFifty patients with AIS, aged 10–18 years, with curves 10–45 °, recruited from a scoliosis clinic were randomized to receive standard of care or supervised Schroth exercises plus standard of care for 6 months. Schroth exercises were taught over five sessions in the first two weeks. A daily home program was adjusted during weekly supervised sessions. The assessor and the statistician were blinded. Outcomes included the Biering-Sorensen (BME) test, Scoliosis Research Society (SRS-22r) and Spinal Appearance Questionnaires (SAQ) scores. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) linear mixed effects models were analyzed. Because ITT and PP analyses produced similar results, only ITT is reported.ResultsAfter 3 months, BME in the Schroth group improved by 32.3 s, and in the control by 4.8 s. This 27.5 s difference in change between groups was statically significant (95 % CI 1.1 to 53.8 s, p = 0.04). From 3 to 6 months, the self-image improved in the Schroth group by 0.13 and deteriorated in the control by 0.17 (0.3, 95 % CI 0.01 to 0.59, p = 0.049). A difference between groups for the change in the SRS-22r pain score transformed to its power of four was observed from 3 to 6 months (85.3, 95 % CI 8.1 to 162.5, p = 0.03), where (SRS-22 pain score)4 increased by 65.3 in the Schroth and decreased by 20.0 in the control group. Covariates: age, self-efficacy, brace-wear, Schroth classification, and height had significant main effects on some outcomes. Baseline ceiling effects were high: SRS-22r (pain = 18.4 %, function = 28.6 %), and SAQ (prominence = 26.5 %, waist = 29.2 %, chest = 46.9 %, trunk shift = 12.2 % and shoulders = 18.4 %).ConclusionsSupervised Schroth exercises provided added benefit to the standard of care by improving SRS-22r pain, self-image scores and BME. Given the high prevalence of ceiling effects on SRS-22r and SAQ questionnaires’ domains, we hypothesize that in the AIS population receiving conservative treatments, different QOL questionnaires with adequate responsiveness are needed.Trial registrationSchroth Exercise Trial for Scoliosis NCT01610908.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13013-015-0048-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.