Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Scoliosis and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Research

SpineCor treatment for Juvenile Idiopathic Scoliosis: SOSORT award 2010 winner

Christine Coillard, Alin B Circo and Charles H Rivard*

Scoliosis 2010, 5:25  doi:10.1186/1748-7161-5-25

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email info@biomedcentral.com, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Material not really clear / relevant articles on the SpineCor not discussed.

Hans-Rudolf Weiss   (2010-11-28 21:09)  Scoliosis Rehabilitation Services, Gensingen, Germany email

Dear Editor,

I must admit, I was a bit astonished to find this paper published in Scoliosis as a winner of a SOSORT award.

1. The materials as described are hard to reconstruct as the description of the materials within this study is an accumulation of different samples of patients. A clear description of the patient materials of the relevant sample that has completed treatment without none relevant data would have been desirable.

2. Within the paper one prospective controlled study (Best Clinical Paper, IRSSD Vancouver 2004 [1]) and a randomized controlled study from Hong Kong [2] on the SpineCor with contradictory results to the conclusions as presented here have not been cited, neither discussed.

Therefore, the conclusion drawn from the paper as presented cannot be regarded as being valid. Comprehensible conclusions can only be drawn from papers discussing also contradictory papers and therefore this paper has to be flawed on the basis of not aiming at an objective approach to the analysis.

To my subjective opinion only a clear description of the materials without any overloading with non relevant data will enable the reader to follow-up with the discussion and conclusion of the authors. And the discussion should also point out to papers that might affect biased conclusions.
Unfortunately also other recent papers on the SpineCor are prone to the same shortcomings, lacking clear description of materials as presented within this comment and unbiased discussion as well [3,4].

If there is a biomechanical model described so as to allow to conclude why in independent studies the SpineCor was not applied successfully [5], I would have expected that the authors also discuss this matter appropriately.

1. Brace treatment during pubertal growth spurt in girls with idiopathic scoliosis (IS): a prospective trial comparing two different concepts.
Weiss HR, Weiss GM.
Pediatr Rehabil. 2005 Jul-Sep;8(3):199-206.
2. The effect of rigid versus flexible spinal orthosis on the clinical efficacy and acceptance of the patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Wong MS, Cheng JC, Lam TP, Ng BK, Sin SW, Lee-Shum SL, Chow DH, Tam SY.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 May 20;33(12):1360-5.
3. Effectiveness of the SpineCor brace based on the new standardized criteria proposed by the scoliosis research society for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Coillard C, Vachon V, Circo AB, Beauséjour M, Rivard CH.
J Pediatr Orthop. 2007 Jun;27(4):375-9.
4. Results of SpineCor dynamic bracing for idiopathic scoliosis.
Szwed A, Kołban M, Jałoszewski M.
Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2009 Sep-Oct;11(5):427-32.
5. SpineCor vs. natural history - explanation of the results obtained using a simple biomechanical model.
Weiss HR.
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;140:133-6.


Competing interests

The author of this comment is applying for patents relating to scoliosis braces and is advisor of Koob-Scolitech, Abtweiler, Germany.

top

Post a comment