ArticleThe open orthopaedics journal2013
Quantification of vertebral involvement in metastatic spinal disease.
Article in The open orthopaedics journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is there a relationship between spinal instability in neoplastic disease and Tokuhashi scoring system?Neurosurgical review · 2016Article
- Stereotactic body radiotherapy for metastatic spinal sarcoma: a detailed patterns-of-failure study.Journal of neurosurgery. Spine · 2016Article
- Clinical efficacy of computed tomography-guided iodine-125 seed implantation therapy in patients with advanced spinal metastatic tumors.OncoTargets and therapy · 2016Article
- Outcomes and survival of spinal metastasis with epidural compression.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
- Evaluation of epidemiological and pathological features of symptomatic spinal metastases in Romania - what could we learn from a retrospective study?Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologieArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor patients with a solitary and well-delimitated spinal metastasis that resides inside the vertebral body, without vertebral canal invasion, and who are in good general health with a long life expectancy, en bloc spondylectomy/total vertebrectomy combined with the use of primary stabilizing instrumentation has been advocated. However, clinical experience suggests that these qualifying conditions occur very rarely.
objectiveThe purpose of this paper is to quantify the distribution of vertebral involvement in spinal metastases and determine the frequency with which patients can be considered candidates for radical surgery (en bloc spondylectomy).
methodsConsecutive patients were classified accordingly to Enneking's and Tomita's schemes for grading vertebral involvement of metastases.
resultsFifty-one (51) consecutive patients were evaluated. Eighty-three percent of patients presented with the involvement of multiple vertebral levels and/or spinal canal invasion.
conclusionBecause of diffuse vertebral involvement of metastases, no patients in this sample were considered to be candidates for radical spondylectomy of vertebral metastasis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.