Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22983682›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2013

Treating metastatic disease: Which survival model is best suited for the clinic?

Jonathan Agner Forsberg, Daniel Sjoberg, Qing-Rong Chen, Andrew Vickers, John H Healey

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Fracture risk assessment and clinical decision making for patients with metastatic bone disease.Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. CORR InsightsClinical orthopaedics and related research · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonathan Agner ForsbergRegenerative Medicine, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA. jaforsberg@me.com
Daniel Sjoberg
Qing-Rong Chen
Andrew Vickers
John H Healey

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo avoid complications associated with under- or overtreatment of patients with skeletal metastases, doctors need accurate survival estimates. Unfortunately, prognostic models for patients with skeletal metastases of the extremities are lacking, and physician-based estimates are generally inaccurate. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We developed three types of prognostic models and compared them using calibration plots, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and decision curve analysis to determine which one is best suited for clinical use.

methodsA training set consisted of 189 patients who underwent surgery for skeletal metastases. We created models designed to predict 3- and 12-month survival using three methods: an Artificial Neural Network (ANN), a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN), and logistic regression. We then performed crossvalidation and compared the models in three ways: calibration plots plotting predicted against actual risk; area under the ROC curve (AUC) to discriminate the probability that a patient who died has a higher predicted probability of death compared to a patient who did not die; and decision curve analysis to quantify the clinical consequences of over- or undertreatment.

resultsAll models appeared to be well calibrated, with the exception of the BBN, which underestimated 3-month survival at lower probability estimates. The ANN models had the highest discrimination, with an AUC of 0.89 and 0.93, respectively, for the 3- and 12-month models. Decision analysis revealed all models could be used clinically, but the ANN models consistently resulted in the highest net benefit, outperforming the BBN and logistic regression models.

conclusionsOur observations suggest use of the ANN model to aid decisions about surgery would lead to better patient outcomes than other alternative approaches to decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesOrthopedic ProceduresAgedBayes TheoremBone NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedNeural Networks, ComputerPatient SelectionPredictive Value of TestsProbabilityRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID22983682
PMCPMC3563791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.