Table 1 Basic features of the included literature
From: The effect of an exercise intervention on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a network meta-analysis
First author and year of publication | Sample size T/C | Gender M/F | Age T/C | Intervention T/C | Intervention duration/week | Outcome measures |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Xiang Ji (2020) | 13/13 | 8/18 | 10.09 ± 1.92/10.69 ± 2.01 | Core strength training/Conventional therapy | 12 | Cobb angle |
Gözde Gür (2016) | 13/13 | 1/25 | 14.2 ± 1.8/14 ± 1.6 | Core strength training/Conventional therapy | 10 | Cobb angle |
Hikmet Kocaman (2021) | 14/14 | 7/21 | 14.07 ± 2.37/14.21 ± 2.19 | Core strength training、Schroth exercise/Conventional therapy | 10 | Cobb angle |
Sanja Schreiber (2019) | 25/25 | 3/47 | 13.5 ± 0.7/13.3 ± 0.6 | PSSE/Conventional therapy | 24 | Cobb angle |
Mei Du (2020) | 8/8 | 16/0 | 18.34 ± 0.89/18.91 ± 0.93 | Yoga/Conventional therapy | 12 | Cobb angle |
Xiaohui Liu (2021) | 8/8 | 16/0 | 18.34 ± 0.89/18.91 ± 0.93 | Yoga/Conventional therapy | 12 | Cobb angle |
Gozde Yagci (2019) | 15/15 | 0/30 | 14 ± 1.3/14.2 ± 1.5 | Core strength training/Conventional therapy | 16 | Cobb angle |
Chengfei Gao (2019) | 23/22 | 9/36 | 12.22 ± 1.35/12.14 ± 1.32 | PSSE/Conventional therapy | 24 | Cobb angle |
Mohamed (2021) | 17/17 | 0/34 | 14.50 ± 1.20/14.90 ± 1.40 | Schroth exercise/Conventional therapy | 24 | Cobb angle |
Hua Li (2021) | 50/50 | 42/58 | 34.52 ± 5.68/33.86 ± 5.71 | Sling exercise/Conventional therapy | 4 | Cobb angle |
Lidan Deng (2021) | 49/49 | 49/49 | 10.13 ± 2.29/10.16 ± 2.30 | Core strength training/Conventional therapy | 12 | Cobb angle |
Zipeng Zhou (2018) | 40/40 | 33/47 | 24.7 ± 4.8/24.6 ± 4.6 | Core strength training PSSE/Conventional therapy | 12 | Cobb angle |