ArticleCNS oncology2015
Spine metastases: are minimally invasive surgical techniques living up to the hype?
Article in CNS oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interventional Procedures for Vertebral Diseases: Spinal Tumor Ablation, Vertebral Augmentation, and Basivertebral Nerve Ablation-A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) Best Practices and Guidelines for the Interventional Management of Cancer-Associated Pain.Journal of pain research · 2021Review
- Treatment of spine metastases in cancer: a review.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Review
- Use of percutaneous microwave ablation for the treatment of bone tumors: a retrospective study of clinical outcomes in 47 patients.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgery is still considered the mainstay treatment of spine metastases. However, conventional surgery is associated with a high complication rate that may delay the initiation of adjuvant therapies and make some patients not eligible. Minimally invasive surgical techniques have been developed to overcome these drawbacks while providing the same benefits than standard open surgery. In recent years, there has been a flourishing enthusiasm demonstrating the advantages of these various techniques. Although, it is clear that these techniques have greatly improved the treatment of spine metastases, each has its own limitations. In this report, we list the main minimally invasive surgical techniques emphasizing their advantages and drawbacks.
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.