Schroth physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: how many patients require treatment to prevent one deterioration? - results from a randomized controlled trial - "SOSORT 2017 Award Winner"

Sanja Schreiber, Eric C Parent, Doug L Hill, Douglas M Hedden, Marc J Moreau, Sarah C Southon, Sanja Schreiber, Eric C Parent, Doug L Hill, Douglas M Hedden, Marc J Moreau, Sarah C Southon

Abstract

Background: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) support using physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). All RCTs reported statistically significant results favouring PSSE but none reported on clinical significance. The number needed to treat (NNT) helps determine if RCT results are clinically meaningful. The NNT is the number of patients that need to be treated to prevent one bad outcome in a given period. A low NNT suggests that a therapy has positive outcomes in most patients offered the therapy. The objective was to determine how many patients require Schroth PSSE added to standard care (observation or brace treatment) to prevent one progression (NNT) of the Largest Curve (LC) or Sum of Curves (SOC) beyond 5° and 10°, respectively over a 6-month interval.

Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a RCT. Fifty consecutive participants from a scoliosis clinic were randomized to the Schroth PSSE + standard of care group (n = 25) or the standard of care group (n = 25).We included males and females with AIS, age 10-18 years, all curve types, with curves 10°- 45°, with or without brace, and all maturity levels. We excluded patients awaiting surgery, having had surgery, having completed brace treatment and with other scoliosis diagnoses. The local ethics review board approved the study (Pro00011552).The Schroth intervention consisted of weekly 1-h supervised Schroth PSSE sessions and a daily home program delivered over six months in addition to the standard of care. A prescription algorithm was used to determine which exercises patients were to perform. Controls received only standard of care.Cobb angles were measured using a semi-automatic system from posterior-anterior standing radiographs at baseline and 6 months.We calculated absolute risk reduction (ARR) and relative risk reduction (RRR). The NTT was calculated as: NNT = 1/ARR. Patients with missing values (PSSE group; n = 2 and controls; n = 4) were assumed to have had curve progression (worst case scenario). The RRR is calculated as RRR = ARR/CER.

Results: For LC, NNT = 3.6 (95% CI 2.0-28.2), and for SOC, NNT = 3.1 (95% CI 1.9-14.2). The corresponding ARR was 28% for LC and 32% for the SOC. The RRR was 70% for LC and 73% for the SOC. Patients with complete follow-up attended 85% of prescribed visits and completed 82.5% of the home program. Assuming zero compliance after dropout, 76% of visits were attended and 73% of the prescribed home exercises were completed.

Conclusions: The short term of Schroth PSSE intervention added to standard care provided a large benefit as compared to standard care alone. Four (LC and SOC) patients require treatment for the additional benefit of a 6-month long Schroth intervention to be observed beyond the standard of care in at least one patient.

Trial registration: NCT01610908 April 2, 2012.

Keywords: Adolescents; Clinical significance; Cobb angle; Exercise; Number needed to treat; Physiotherapeutic scoliosis specific exercises; Radiography; Schroth; Scoliosis; Spinal curvatures.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial conducted with ethics approval from the local Health Research Ethics Board Biomedical (HREB) (Pro00011552). All patients provided consents to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

SS owns a private clinic providing Schroth exercises opened after completing the research.

The authors declare that they have no other competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Negrini S, Bettany-Saltikov J, de Mauroy JC, Durmala J, Grivas TB, Knott P, Kotwicki T, Maruyama T, O'Brien JP, Parent E, Rigo M, Romano M, Stikeleather L, Villagrasa M, Zaina F: Letter to the Editor concerning: “Active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial” by Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Ferrante S (2014). Eur Spine J; DOI:10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y. Eur Spine J 2014, 23:2218–2220.
    1. Monticone M. Answer to the letter to the editor of S. Negrini et al. concerning “active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial” by Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Ferrante S (2014) Eur spine J. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:2221–2222. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3465-x.
    1. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Ferrante S. Active self-correction and task-oriented exercises reduce spinal deformity and improve quality of life in subjects with mild adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2014;23:1204–1214. doi: 10.1007/s00586-014-3241-y.
    1. Kuru T, Yeldan İ, Dereli EE, Özdinçler AR, Dikici F, Çolak İ. The efficacy of three-dimensional Schroth exercises in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2016;30:181–190. doi: 10.1177/0269215515575745.
    1. Schreiber S, Parent EC, Moez EK, Hedden DM, Hill DL, Moreau M, Lou E, Watkins EM, Southon SC: Schroth Physiotherapeutic Scoliosis-Specific Exercises Added to the Standard of Care Lead to Better Cobb Angle Outcomes in Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis – an Assessor and Statistician Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE, 11:e0168746.
    1. Monticone M, Ambrosini E, Cazzaniga D, Rocca B, Motta L, Cerri C, Brayda-Bruno M, Lovi A. Adults with idiopathic scoliosis improve disability after motor and cognitive rehabilitation: results of a randomised controlled trial. Eur Spine J. 2016;25:3120–3129. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4528-y.
    1. Guyatt GH, Osoba D, Wu AW, Wyrwich KW, Norman GR. Clinical significance consensus meeting group: methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371–383. doi: 10.4065/77.4.371.
    1. Carreon LY, Sanders JO, Diab M, Sucato DJ, Sturm PF, Glassman SD. Spinal deformity study group: the minimum clinically important difference in Scoliosis Research Society-22 appearance, activity, and pain domains after surgical correction of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Spine. 2010;35:2079–2083. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c61fd7.
    1. Sloan JA. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD. 2005;2:57–62. doi: 10.1081/COPD-200053374.
    1. Musselman KE. Clinical significance testing in rehabilitation research: what, why, and how? Phys Ther Rev. 2007;12:287–296. doi: 10.1179/108331907X223128.
    1. Jacobson NS, Truax P. Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;59:12–19. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.59.1.12.
    1. Jacobson NS, Follette WC, Revenstorf D. Psychotherapy outcome research: methods for reporting variability and evaluating clinical significance. Behav Ther. 1984;15:336–352. doi: 10.1016/S0005-7894(84)80002-7.
    1. ScienceDirect - Behavior Therapy, Volume 17, Issue 3, Pages 197–312 (June 1986) [].
    1. Kazdin AE. The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:332–339. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.332.
    1. Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Group TCSCM: estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:285–295. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-0705-2.
    1. Revicki D, Hays R, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:102–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012.
    1. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther. 2009;17:163–170. doi: 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163.
    1. Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:395–407. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1.
    1. Schreiber S, Parent EC, Hedden DM, Moreau M, Hill D, Lou E. Effect of Schroth exercises on curve characteristics and clinical outcomes in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial. J Phys. 2014;60:234.
    1. Schreiber S, Parent EC, Moez EK, Hedden DM, Hill D, Moreau MJ, Lou E, Watkins EM, Southon SC: The effect of Schroth exercises added to the standard of care on the quality of life and muscle endurance in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis-an assessor and statistician blinded randomized controlled trial: "SOSORT 2015 Award Winner". 2015, 10:1–12.
    1. Watkins EM. Bosnjak S. Parent EC: Algorithms to prescribe Schroth exercises for each of four Schroth curve types. 2012;7:P22.
    1. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis - Treatment [].
    1. Zhang J, Lou E, Shi X, Wang Y, Hill DL, Raso JV, Le LH, Lv L. A computer-aided cobb angle measurement method and its reliability. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2010;23:383–387. doi: 10.1097/BSD.0b013e3181bb9a3c.
    1. Bender R. Calculating confidence intervals for the number needed to treat. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:102–110. doi: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00134-3.
    1. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med. 1998;17:873–890. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<873::AID-SIM779>;2-I.
    1. Tandberg D. Improved confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions and number needed to treat (NNT). Center for Evidence Based Medicine - cebmnet. 2009;
    1. Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. 2009.
    1. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH: Applied Longitudinal Analysis. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
    1. Lonstein JE, Carlson JM. The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;
    1. Lonstein J, Carlson J. The prediction of curve progression in untreated idiopathic scoliosis during growth. J Bone Joint Surg. 1984;66:1061. doi: 10.2106/00004623-198466070-00013.
    1. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Wright JG, Dobbs MB. Effects of bracing in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1512–1521. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307337.
    1. Sanders JO, Newton PO, Browne RH, Katz DE, Birch JG, Herring JA. Bracing for idiopathic scoliosis: how many patients require treatment to prevent one surgery? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96:649. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00290.
    1. Nachemson AL, Peterson LE. Effectiveness of treatment with a brace in girls who have adolescent idiopathic scoliosis : a prospective, controlled study based on data from the brace study of the Scoliosis Research Society. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1995;77:815–822. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199506000-00001.
    1. Danielsson AJ, Hasserius R, Ohlin A, Nachemson AL. A prospective study of brace treatment versus observation alone in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a follow-up mean of 16 years after maturity. Spine. 2007;32:2198–2207. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31814b851f.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa