Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835Open textbooks209Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›EvidenceLib›Diagnostics and Medical Technology›Braces

Continue where you left off ()

Explore more with EvidenceHelix Workspace

Compare studies, analyze evidence and create research reports with premium tools.

Explore Researcher plans

Research reading room

Braces

Diagnostics and Medical Technology · NLM MeSH · updated 2026-11-04 · version 1

Citations verified against PubMedNot yet clinician-reviewed10 referencesApproximately 6 min read

Orthopedic appliances used to support, align, or hold parts of the body in correct position.

Table of Contents

1. Definition2. Research landscape3. Reading the evidence4. Open-access studies5. Key reviews6. References7. About this article

Definition and research guide

This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.

Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,178 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.

Definition

Orthopedic appliances used to support, align, or hold parts of the body in correct position. (Dorland, 28th ed)

Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.

Also known as: Brace.

Where it fits in the MeSH classification

Broader topics
Orthotic Devices

Research landscape

PubMed indexes 6,448 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Braces” (counts retrieved 2026-11-04). 923 of them (14.3%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 2,688 records.

Reviews account for 847 records (13.1%) and meta-analyses for 96. Randomized controlled trials number 449 (7.0%) as a share of all records on the topic.

PubMed records by publication periodthrough 1999: 2,688 records; 2000-2009: 1,211 records; 2010-2019: 1,626 records; 2020 onward: 923 records2,688through 19991,2112000-20091,6262010-20199232020 onward
Records in PubMed indexed with this heading, by publication period. Real counts from NCBI E-utilities; the final period covers only part of the current year. Volume reflects how much has been published, not how strong the evidence is.
Show the data
PeriodRecords
through 19992,688
2000-20091,211
2010-20191,626
2020 onward923
Share of records by publication typeReviews: 13.1 percent; Meta-analyses: 1.5 percent; Randomized controlled trials: 7.0 percentReviews13.1% (847)Meta-analyses1.5% (96)Randomized controlled trials7.0% (449)
Share of all PubMed records on this heading that carry each publication type. Types overlap with other records, so the shares do not sum to 100%.
Publication-type chart data
Publication types among 6,448 PubMed records
TypeRecordsShare
Reviews84713.1%
Meta-analyses961.5%
Randomized controlled trials4497.0%

Method: PubMed query "Braces"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-11-04.

Reading the evidence in diagnostics and medical technology

A test or device is judged by how well it detects a condition, how often it gives false alarms or misses cases, and whether using it improves outcomes for people. Accuracy depends on who is tested and how common the condition is, so a test that performs well in a specialist hospital can perform differently in the community. Check the reference standard, the population studied, the sensitivity and specificity and whether results were confirmed in a separate group.

Evidence from open-access studies

These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.

Study comparison — selected abstracts, not a systematic review
Study / authorsYearSource label / designEurope PMC citationsLicence / source
A randomised trial of a brace for patellofemoral osteoarthritis targeting knee pain and bone marrow lesions
Callaghan MJ, Parkes MJ, Hutchinson CE, Gait AD, Forsythe LM, Marjanovic EJ, et al.
2015Randomized controlled trial
Design not recorded in structured metadata
121cc by
PMID 25596158 · DOI · PMC4771926
Clinical results of an arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation with and without an internal brace
Yoo JS, Yang EA
2016Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
89cc by
PMID 27108426 · DOI · PMC5071235
Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation
Costa ML, Achten J, Marian IR, Dutton SJ, Lamb SE, Ollivere B, et al.
2020Research article
Design not recorded in structured metadata
59cc by
PMID 32035553 · DOI · PMC7016510
Provision of knee bracing for knee osteoarthritis (PROP OA): multicentre, parallel group, superiority, statistician blinded, randomised controlled trial
Holden MA, Nicholls E, Abdali Z, Birrell F, Borrelli B, Callaghan M, et al.
2026Randomized controlled trial
Design not recorded in structured metadata
5cc by
PMID 41587822 · DOI · PMC12829467

A randomised trial of a brace for patellofemoral osteoarthritis targeting knee pain and bone marrow lesions [1]

Randomized controlled trial Callaghan MJ, Parkes MJ, Hutchinson CE, Gait AD, Forsythe LM, Marjanovic EJ, et al. · · 2015 · cited 121 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ObjectiveBraces used to treat (PF) osteoarthritis (OA) may reduce contact stress across the PF joint.
Closing excerpt
ISRCTN50380458.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (207 words)

ObjectiveBraces used to treat (PF) osteoarthritis (OA) may reduce contact stress across the PF joint. We hypothesised that in PF OA, braces would decrease knee pain and shrink PF bone marrow lesions (BMLs).MethodsEligible subjects had painful PF OA. Subjects were randomly allocated to brace or no brace for 6 weeks. Knee MRIs were acquired at baseline and 6 weeks. We measured BMLs on post-contrast fat suppressed sagittal and proton density weighted axial images. The primary symptom outcome was change in pain at 6 weeks during a preselected painful activity, and the primary structural outcome was BML volume change in the PF joint. Analyses used multiple linear regression.ResultsWe randomised 126 subjects aged 40-70 years (mean age 55.5 years; 72 females (57.1%)). Mean nominated visual analogue scale (0-10 cm) pain score at baseline was 6.5 cm. 94 knees (75%) had PF BMLs at baseline. Subjects wore the brace for a mean of 7.4 h/day. 6 subjects withdrew during the trial. After accounting for baseline values, the brace group had lower knee pain than the control group at 6 weeks (difference between groups -1.3 cm, 95% CI -2.0 to -0.7; pConclusionsA PF brace reduces BML volume in the targeted compartment of the knee, and relieves knee pain.Trial registration numberUK. ISRCTN50380458.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25596158 · DOI · PMC4771926

Clinical results of an arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation with and without an internal brace [2]

Research article Yoo JS, Yang EA · · 2016 · cited 89 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundThe concept of utilizing nonabsorbable suture tape fixed directly to bone to augment Brostrom repairs of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) has been proposed.
Closing excerpt
Level of evidenceIII.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (173 words)

BackgroundThe concept of utilizing nonabsorbable suture tape fixed directly to bone to augment Brostrom repairs of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) has been proposed. However, no clinical data are currently available regarding the arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation with an internal brace.Materials and methodsThis study involved 85 consecutive patients (22 in the with internal brace group; 63 in the without internal brace group) who could be followed up for >6 months after undergoing an arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation. The American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score was administered to assess the functional status. At preoperation and at 24 weeks after surgery, the anterior drawer test was examined clinically.ResultsImprovement of mean AOFAS score in the internal brace group from before surgery to two weeks after surgery was statistically significant (p ConclusionPatients in the internal brace group were able to quickly return to activity and sports. We believe this technique could be a viable option for surgically treating chronic lateral ankle instability in patients who need an early return to activity and sports.Level of evidenceIII.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 27108426 · DOI · PMC5071235

Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation [3]

Research article Costa ML, Achten J, Marian IR, Dutton SJ, Lamb SE, Ollivere B, et al. · · 2020 · cited 59 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
BackgroundPatients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks.
Closing excerpt
FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (459 words)

BackgroundPatients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative non-operative treatment that allows earlier mobilisation, but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is scarce. The aim of the UKSTAR trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life outcomes and resource use in patients treated non-operatively with plaster cast versus functional brace.MethodsUKSTAR was a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at 39 hospitals in the UK. Patients (aged ≥16 years) who were being treated non-operatively for a primary Achilles tendon rupture at the participating centres were potentially eligible. The exclusion criteria were presenting more than 14 days after injury, previous rupture of the same Achilles tendon, or being unable to complete the questionnaires. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a plaster cast or functional brace using a centralised web-based system. Because the interventions were clearly visible, neither patients nor clinicians could be masked. Participants wore the intervention for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the groups to which they were allocated, excluding participants who withdrew or died before providing any outcome data). The main safety outcome was the incidence of tendon re-rupture. Resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN62639639.FindingsBetween Aug 15, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 1451 patients were screened, of whom 540 participants (mean age 48·7 years, 79% male) were randomly allocated to receive plaster cast (n=266) or functional brace (n=274). 527 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded because they withdrew or died before providing any outcome data. There was no difference in ATRS at 9 months post injury (cast group n=244, mean ATRS 74∙4 [SD 19∙8]; functional brace group n=259, ATRS 72∙8 [20∙4]; adjusted mean difference -1∙38 [95% CI -4∙9 to 2∙1], p=0·44). There was no difference in the rate of re-rupture of the tendon (17 [6%] of 266 in the plaster cast group vs 13 [5%] of 274 in the functional brace group, p=0·40). The mean total health and personal social care cost was £1181 for the plaster cast group and £1078 for the functional bract group (mean between-group difference -£103 [95% CI -289 to 84]).InterpretationTraditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to early weight-bearing in a functional brace, as measured by ATRS, in the management of patients treated non-surgically for Achilles tendon rupture. Clinicians may consider the use of early weight-bearing in a functional brace as a safe and cost-effective alternative to plaster casting.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 32035553 · DOI · PMC7016510

Provision of knee bracing for knee osteoarthritis (PROP OA): multicentre, parallel group, superiority, statistician blinded, randomised controlled trial [4]

Randomized controlled trial Holden MA, Nicholls E, Abdali Z, Birrell F, Borrelli B, Callaghan M, et al. · · 2026 · cited 5 times (Europe PMC)

Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
Opening excerpt
ObjectiveTo determine whether adding compartment specific knee bracing with an adherence intervention to advice, written information, and exercise instruction (AIE+B) is superior to advice, written information, and exercise instruction (AIE) only in improving patient reported outcomes in people with knee osteoarthritis.
Closing excerpt
Trial registrationISRCTN28555470.
Interpretation limits
Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (339 words)

ObjectiveTo determine whether adding compartment specific knee bracing with an adherence intervention to advice, written information, and exercise instruction (AIE+B) is superior to advice, written information, and exercise instruction (AIE) only in improving patient reported outcomes in people with knee osteoarthritis.DesignMulticentre, parallel group, superiority, statistician blinded, randomised (1:1; block; stratified; centralised web based) controlled trial.SettingRecruitment through general practices and the community in Cheshire, Manchester, North Tyneside, and Staffordshire, England; enrolment 25 November 2019 to 16 September 2022.Participants466 adults aged ≥45 years with symptoms of knee osteoarthritis.InterventionsAIE was delivered in one in-person consultation by a trained physiotherapist. Individuals randomised to the AIE+B group were also fitted with a patellofemoral, tibiofemoral unloading, or neutral stabilising knee brace, according to their predominant compartmental distribution of knee osteoarthritis, and were offered a two week follow-up consultation. Brief motivational interviewing with targeted text reminders supported brace adherence.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a composite patient reported Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5 (0-100) at six months after randomisation. Key secondary outcomes were KOOS-5 at three and 12 months, KOOS-5 subscale scores, and pain on weight bearing activity at three, six, and 12 months.Results466 participants (mean age 64 (standard deviation 9) years; 46% female participants) were randomised, with 401 (86%), 394 (85%), and 370 (79%) participants followed up with analysable data at three, six, and 12 months, respectively. At six months, greater improvement in KOOS-5 was seen in the AIE+B group than in the AIE group (adjusted mean difference 3.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 5.82; effect size 0.24). Secondary outcomes showed the benefits of AIE+B over AIE that diminished over time. The largest effects observed were for pain reduction (KOOS pain (0-100) adjusted mean difference at six months 6.13, 95% CI 3.36 to 8.91; effect size 0.39). Adverse events were minor and expected.ConclusionsAdding compartment specific knee bracing and an adherence intervention to advice, written information, and exercise instruction resulted in small improvements in patient reported outcomes among individuals with knee osteoarthritis. This safe intervention offers a potential treatment option for this common condition.Trial registrationISRCTN28555470.

Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41587822 · DOI · PMC12829467

Key reviews and meta-analyses

The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.

  • Research article Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis [5]
    Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA · Lancet · 2008 · cited 1,010 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Treatment and prevention of acute and recurrent ankle sprain: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis [6]
    Doherty C, Bleakley C, Delahunt E, Holden S · Br J Sports Med · 2017 · cited 223 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Clinical practice. Idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents [7]
    Hresko MT · N Engl J Med · 2013 · cited 211 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Screening for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force [8]
    Dunn J, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Blasi PR, Nguyen M, Lin JS · JAMA · 2018 · cited 207 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis [9]
    Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S · Cochrane Database Syst Rev · 2016 · cited 175 times (Europe PMC)
  • Research article Is There a Role for Internal Bracing and Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament? A Systematic Literature Review [10]
    van Eck CF, Limpisvasti O, ElAttrache NS · Am J Sports Med · 2018 · cited 109 times (Europe PMC)

References

  1. Callaghan MJ, Parkes MJ, Hutchinson CE, Gait AD, Forsythe LM, Marjanovic EJ, et al.. A randomised trial of a brace for patellofemoral osteoarthritis targeting knee pain and bone marrow lesions. . 2015. PMID 25596158 · DOI · PMC4771926
  2. Yoo JS, Yang EA. Clinical results of an arthroscopic modified Brostrom operation with and without an internal brace. . 2016. PMID 27108426 · DOI · PMC5071235
  3. Costa ML, Achten J, Marian IR, Dutton SJ, Lamb SE, Ollivere B, et al.. Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. . 2020. PMID 32035553 · DOI · PMC7016510
  4. Holden MA, Nicholls E, Abdali Z, Birrell F, Borrelli B, Callaghan M, et al.. Provision of knee bracing for knee osteoarthritis (PROP OA): multicentre, parallel group, superiority, statistician blinded, randomised controlled trial. . 2026. PMID 41587822 · DOI · PMC12829467
  5. Weinstein SL, Dolan LA, Cheng JC, Danielsson A, Morcuende JA. Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Lancet. 2008. PMID 18456103 · DOI
  6. Doherty C, Bleakley C, Delahunt E, Holden S. Treatment and prevention of acute and recurrent ankle sprain: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017. PMID 28053200 · DOI
  7. Hresko MT. Clinical practice. Idiopathic scoliosis in adolescents. N Engl J Med. 2013. PMID 23445094 · DOI
  8. Dunn J, Henrikson NB, Morrison CC, Blasi PR, Nguyen M, Lin JS. Screening for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018. PMID 29318283 · DOI · PMC13480065
  9. Zaina F, Tomkins-Lane C, Carragee E, Negrini S. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID 26824399 · DOI · PMC6669253
  10. van Eck CF, Limpisvasti O, ElAttrache NS. Is There a Role for Internal Bracing and Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament? A Systematic Literature Review. Am J Sports Med. 2018. PMID 28783472 · DOI

About this article

Sources
NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
Verification
Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
Review state
automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
Version
1, last updated 2026-11-04.

See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.

Evidence strength

EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.

Included with the Researcher plan

Reading every article stays free. This computed view is part of the paid plans.

See plans Sign in

Your notes

Notes and highlights stay in this browser only; they are not sent to EvidenceHelix.

Related research topics

  • Foot OrthosesDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • SplintsDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • Suture AnchorsDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • AortographyDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • AutoradiographyDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • BedsDiagnostics and Medical Technology

All 110 articles in Diagnostics and Medical Technology →

At a glance

6,448
PubMed records on this heading
14%
published since 2020
847
review articles
449
randomized trials
10
verified references below

Counts come from PubMed on 2026-11-04; they show how much has been written, not how strong the evidence is.

Related topics See all →

  • Foot OrthosesDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • SplintsDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • Suture AnchorsDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • AortographyDiagnostics and Medical Technology
  • AutoradiographyDiagnostics and Medical Technology

My notes & annotations (0)

Nothing yet. Select text and press Highlight, or write a note in the Notes tab. Stored in this browser only.

Sources

  • NLM MeSH record ↗
  • PubMed search used ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support