Background: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is one of the most prevalent spinal abnormalities, appearing far into puberty. Schroth Exercises (SE) and Core-stabilization Exercises (CE) have become very prominent among the specialized and general methods to scoliosis treatment. However, their effects are still unclear and there is insufficient evidence of superiority between them. Therefore, the aims of this review were to (1) evaluate and, (2) compare the effectiveness of these methods on Cobb angles (CA) in AIS. methods: A Systematic review was performed on SE and CE papers. The databases included PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Google Scholar from 2005 to June 2022. The PEDro scale assessed the quality of the papers. Results: After screening 410 papers, nine papers (SE=5, CE=3 and SE vs. CE=1), with 339 participants, were admitted for review (PEDro=6). Among them, three (SE=moderate evidence) and two papers (CE=limited evidence) reported clinically significant reductions in CA>5˚, alone or compared to control or other Exercise methods, while only one paper (very limited evidence) showed the relative superiority of SE (-7.16˚) compared to CE (-3.27˚). However, three papers did not show clinically significant results (CA<5˚). Conclusions: Moderate and limited evidence suggests that both SE and CE can effectively improve CA, respectively. There is very limited evidence to suggest that SE is more effective than CE in treating AIS. Thus, the definitive answers to the questions, especially in regard to the superiority between these two methods, remained unclear. Further high-quality studies must be conducted in the future.

Purpose: Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis and the most complex deformity of the spine. The promising results of Schroth and Scientific Exercise Approach to Scoliosis (SEAS), among other methods of Exercise therapy, have attracted the attention of many researchers and therapists. However, there is still vague evidence of their effectiveness and their superiority. Therefore, this review aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of Schroth and SEAS Exercises on correcting AIS. methods: Searching was conducted in databases, including Cochrane, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar from 2005 to December 2021 using keywords related to AIS. Inclusion criteria were the papers using Schroth and SEAS Exercises as an intervention. The PEDro scale was used for evaluating the quality of the papers. Results: Ten papers with an average PEDro sCore of 6. 2 were licensed to enter the study. Five Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) and one Clinical Controlled Trial (CCT) reported a significant reduction in Cobb Angle (CA) (greater than 5°, ) using the Schroth method (moderate). Moreover, two CCTs and one RCT indicated a significant reduction in CA (greater than 5°, ) using the SEAS method (limited). However, no paper was found for choosing superiority between Schroth and SEAS (no evidence). Conclusion: Although there is limited to moderate evidence in the studies, it seems that both Schroth and SEAS Exercises were effective in improving AIS, which was more prominent in the study of the Schroth method. Nevertheless, accessing high-quality papers is necessary for achieving more accurate results in the future.

Background and purpose: Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is the most common type of scoliosis and the most complex deformity of the spine and trunk with significant complications. In this Systematic review, the effectiveness of Core stability Exercises (CSE) in improving this disorder is discussed. Materials and methods: This review was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist. Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis, Cobb angles, and Core stability Exercise were our search terms in PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. The search was limited to articles published in Persian and English between 2005 and 2022. Researches on AIS carried out in adolescents aged 10-18 were studied. In one of the groups, only CSE was done and the size of Cobb's angle (an indicator of the severity of scoliosis) was used as one of the dependent variables. The PEDro scale was used to evaluate the quality of articles in terms of risk of bias. Results: In initial search, 268 articles were found. After removing irrelevant articles and those that did not met the study’, s inclusion criteria and also qualitative evaluation of the remaining articles, seven articles with an average PEDro sCore of 6. 2 (moderate quality), including 297 participants, were selected. A statistically significant decrease was reported in the Cobb angle in all articles, but only in four articles this decrease was clinically significant (greater than 5˚, ). Conclusion: CSE are safe, easy and accessible that can be effective in improving AIS, but there is not sufficient evidence to support this hypothesis. Further high-quality studies are required to draw a definite conclusion and making clinical decisions.

Background and purpose: Low back pain (LBP) is a common and costly problem during pregnancy and assumes to be a part of normal pregnancy caused by normal physiological changes. Pregnancy-related LBP is one of the main reasons for disability, absence from work and responsible for huge direct and indirect economical impact.  This article Systematically reviews papers concerning the epidemiology and risk factors on LBP in pregnant women.  Materials and methods: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Rose-Net, OVID, and BIDS were searched for the period of 1985-2003, using the key words 'low back pain', 'epidemiology', 'pregnancy', 'risk factors'. In addition, references given in relevant publications were used. Results: Eighteen studies were identified. Eleven studies investigated epidemiology of LBP during pregnancy and the prevalence were reported >50% in 8 (73%) studies.  Ten studies were carried out on the epidemiology of LBP after pregnancy.  The prevalence of LBP were reported >40% in 6 (60%) studies.  Among different reported risk factors, previous LBP as well as younger age were the most important risk factors. Conclusion: Although there were some methodological flaws (e.g., small sample size of the study population, lack of clear classification and definition for LBP, different study design, different methods of study implementation, etc.) which precludes strong conclusion, it appears that LBP is one of the most common problem, during pregnancy and after delivery. It should also be noted that education and certain Exercises can be beneficial to the pregnant women in the absence of medical complications.

Background: Successful clinical decisions are the outcome of a complex process. In making them, we draw on information from scientific evidences, our personal experience and external rules and constraints. Considering that the explosive increase in the amount and quality of the scientific evidence that has come from both the laboratory bench and the bedside, we may lack the time, motivation, and basic skills needed to find, critically appraise, and synthesize information. Fortunately, Systematic reviews help us and answer sharply defined clinical questions. This article deals with two questions; a: what is a Systematic review and, b: how should we organize it? methods: We searched MEDLINE database with search terms of Systematic review and narrative review, restricted to English language, without time limitation. Then we selected those articles written by renowned experts. Results: There are two types of review articles: narrative review and Systematic review. Narrative review has been the conventional method for writing review articles; since it is subjective, it may be subject to error and bias; in areas where there is lack or paucity of evidence, the narrative review may still be the best writing method. Systematic review is the precise, Systematic and classified method of reviewing the existing data and evidences. It is objective, constructive and comprehensive and has much less error and bias than the narrative review.Conclusion: Systematic reviews are thus a vital link in the great chain of evidence that stretches from the laboratory bench to the bedside. It is absolutely essential for targeting these goals, for writing a Systematic review, a fully trained team with an expert leader and a precise protocol is essential.