Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30545326›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2018

Prognostic effect of factors involved in revised Tokuhashi score system for patients with spinal metastases: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Xiong-Gang Yang, Deng-Xing Lun, Yong-Cheng Hu, Yong-Heng Liu, Feng Wang, Jiang-Tao Feng, Kun-Chi Hua, Li Yang, Hao Zhang, Ming-You Xu and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

11 authors.

Xiong-Gang YangDepartment of Bone Tumor of Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300211, China.
Deng-Xing LunWeifang People's Hospital, Shandong, 261000, China.
Yong-Cheng HuDepartment of Bone Tumor of Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, 300211, China. yongchenghu@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9846-6735
Yong-Heng LiuTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Feng WangTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Jiang-Tao FengTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Kun-Chi HuaTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Li YangTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Hao ZhangTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Ming-You XuTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.
Hao-Ran ZhangTianjin Medical university, Tianjin, 300070, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer patients' survival time has obviously improved, with the development of systemic treatment techniques. However, the probability of metastases to the vertebrae has also been increased which makes some adverse effects on patients' quality of life. The prediction of survival plays a key role in choosing therapeutic modality, and Tokuhashi Score was established as one of the most commonly used predictive systems for spinal metastases. Thus, this study was conducted to identify the prognostic effect of factors involved in revised Tokuhashi Score (RTS).

methodsTwo investigators independently retrieved relevant literature on platforms of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. We identified eligible studies through title/abstract and full-text perusing. Data was extracted including general information of studies, participants' characteristics, therapeutic modality, overall survival and prognostic effect of factors. Hazard ratio (HR) for each factor was synthesized if available through fixed- or random-effect models as appropriate.

resultsA total of 63 eligible studies with 10,411 participants were identified. Overall, cases with thyroid cancer had the highest survival rate, while the ones with non-small cell lung cancer and hepatocellular carcinoma lived for the shorted survival time. Performance status, bone metastasis, number of involved vertebrae, visceral metastasis, primary tumor and neurological status were regarded as significant predictors in 71.4, 40.0, 18.2, 63.4, 73.1 and 44.7% of the involved studies respectively. Thirty-eight articles were included in meta-analysis, and prognostic effects of five factors (apart from primary tumor) were analyzed. Factors were all proved to be significant except comparisons between KPS (Karnofsky Performance Status) 10-40 VS. 50-70 and single VS. multiple spinal metastases.

conclusionAll factors of RTS were significant on prognosis predicting and should be considered when choosing therapeutic modality for spinal metastases. What's more, we believe that more accurate prognosis may be obtained after removal of the cut-offs for KPS 10-40 VS. 50-70 and single VS. multiple involved vertebrae.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSpinal NeoplasmsSurvival RateOverall survivalPrognostic factorRevised Tokuhashi scoreSpinal metastasis

Identifiers

PMID30545326
PMCPMC6293585

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.