Wan 2005.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial.
Participants	80 patients with double curve (S‐shaped) scoliosis. Mean age: 15 ± 4; female: 43. 50 double curves (right thoracic and left lumbar); 30 had left thoracic and right lumbar curves. Exclusion criteria: single curve (C‐ shaped) scoliosis. Mean Cobb angle at start was: thoracic 25 ± 13°, lumbar 23 ± 11°.
Interventions	Experimental: N = 40: The same as control plus gymnastic exercise for correction of essential S‐shaped scoliosis. Exercises were performed in a lying or creeping position, once a day. control: N = 40: Electro‐stimulation on the lateral body surface by a therapeutic apparatus for correction of lateral curvature. The duration of therapy was increased gradually, beginning with three times a day for thirty minutes each. On the second day, it was twice for one hour each. On the third day it was once for three hours. Thereafter, treatment was increased by one hour every day until it reached eight hours per day. Subsequently, it progressed to traction therapy. When the curvature is pronounced in the upper body, mandibular traction is done using pelvic traction for obvious lateral curvature twice a day, with each session lasting thirty minutes. Both groups also underwent postural training during treatment. Patients were advised to maintain a straight, symmetrical posture during normal activities.
Outcomes	Progression of scoliosis (Cobb's Angles in degrees assessed by X‐Ray). Difference between baseline and six‐month follow‐up.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"patients were randomly divided into two groups"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"patients were randomly divided into two groups"
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes ‐ patients	High risk	Blinding of patients not possible for the kind of intervention.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes‐ providers	High risk	Blinding of providers not possible for the kind of intervention.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes‐.outcome assessors	High risk	"The planning, execution and evaluation were all carried out by the author; The first author used SPSS 10.0 statistical software to manage data. This was used to compare before and after treatment in association with testing.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Were drop out reported and equal between groups?	Low risk	No drop‐outs from the study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Were all randomised participants analysed in the group to which they were allocated?	Low risk
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk
Group similar at baseline	Low risk	Thoracic Cobb angle was 25±13° , and the lumbar one was 23±11°in the control group. Thoracic Cobb angle was 26±12 ° and the lumbar one was 24±10 ° in the experimental group.
Co‐intervention	Unclear risk	Information not reported.
Compliance with interventions	Unclear risk	Information not reported.
Similar outcome timing	Low risk
Representativeness of the exposed cohort	High risk	Not assessed for RCT.
Selection of the non exposed cohort	High risk	Not assessed for randomised controlled trial.
Ascertainment of exposure	High risk	Not assessed for randomised controlled trial.

ATR: angle of trunk rotation