ArticleOncotarget2016
Predictive value of pedicle involvement with MRI in spine metastases.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluate the characteristics and clinical significance of "toxic twin-leaf" sign in spinal epidural metastases before percutaneous vertebroplasty.Journal of interventional medicine · 2020Article
- Treatment of spine metastases in cancer: a review.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the accuracy and value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in predicting pedicle involvement for patients with spine metastases.
methodsForty-five patients with a vertebral metastasis encroaching at least one pedicle were studied using MRI before surgery and regularly after surgery. Patients were categorized on the basis of their numbers of pedicle involvement (Group 1: one pedicle was involved, n = 23; Group 2: two pedicles were involved, n = 22). The diagnostic accuracy was calculated, and comparisons of intraoperative blood loss and recurrence rate between the two groups were performed.
resultsThe overall performance of MRI in predicting the pedicle involvement was as follows: accuracy, 94.4%; sensitivity, 95.5%; and specificity, 91.3%. Less intraoperative blood loss was observed for Group 1 compared with Group 2 (1,661 ± 672 ml and 2,173 ± 790 ml, respectively, P = 0.024). Tumor relapse occurred in 8.7% (2/23) of Group 1 and in 22.7% (5/22) of Group 2 with median recurrence free survival time 14 and 9 months, respectively.
conclusionsMRI is a reliable approach to assess pedicle involvement. It has potential for use in the evaluation of the clinical characteristics of patients with spine metastases.
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.