Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30133148›Full record

SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2018

Is Ambulatory Status a Prognostic Factor of Survival in Patients with Spinal Metastases? An Exploratory Meta-analysis.

Xiong-Gang Yang, Yue Han, Feng Wang, Yong-Heng Liu, Yong-Cheng Hu, Deng-Xing Lun, Jiang-Tao Feng, Kun-Chi Hua, Li Yang, Hao Zhang and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Outcomes of surgical treatments of spinal metastases: a prospective study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    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

12 authors.

Xiong-Gang YangGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yue HanDepartment of Spine Surgery, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Feng WangGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yong-Heng LiuGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yong-Cheng HuDepartment of Bone Tumor, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Deng-Xing LunDepartment of Spine Surgery, Weifang People's Hospital, Shandong, China.
Jiang-Tao FengGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Kun-Chi HuaGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Li YangGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Hao ZhangGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Ming-You XuGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Hao-Ran ZhangGraduate School, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to identify the influence of ambulatory status prior to treatment on survival of patients with spinal metastases. Two investigators independently retrieved relevant electronic literature in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, to identify eligible studies. Effect estimates for hazard risk (HR) were extracted and synthesized through fixed-effects or random-effects models as appropriate. A total of 17 eligible studies were identified, with an accumulated number of 3962 participants. HR from 14 studies regarding comparison between ambulatory versus non-ambulatory groups were pooled using a random-effects model, and statistical significance was presented for the pooled HR (HR = 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.65-2.34). In subgroups of mixed primary tumor and lung cancer, ambulatory status was considered to be a significant prognostic factor (P < 0.05), while in the subgroup of prostate cancer it was not (HR = 1.72; 95% CI, 0.79-3.74). HR from 4 studies related to comparison between Frankel E versus Frankel C-D were pooled using a fixed-effects model, which revealed statistical significance (HR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.27-2.36). Ambulatory status is a significant prognostic factor in patients with spinal metastases. However, in patients with primary prostate cancer, the prognostic effect of ambulatory status has not yet been confirmed to be significant.

Indexed as

Mobility LimitationHumansLung NeoplasmsMalePrognosisProstatic NeoplasmsPublication BiasSpinal NeoplasmsAmbulatory statusOverall survivalPrognostic factorSpinal metastasis

Identifiers

PMID30133148
PMCPMC6594537

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.