ArticleClinical neurology and neurosurgery2019
Prognosticating outcomes and survival for patients with lumbar spinal metastases: Results of a bayesian regression analysis.
Article in Clinical neurology and neurosurgery, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Trends and Future Prospects of Radiomics and Machine Learning (ML) Models in Spinal Tumors-A Narrative Review.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Epidemiology and surgical management of the lower lumbar spinal metastases in China: a multicenter retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Malnutrition in Spine Oncology: Where Are We and What Are We Measuring?Global spine journal · 2025Article
- The utilization of hypoalbuminemia as a prognostic metric in patients with spinal metastases: A scoping review.Brain & spine · 2025Review
- Posterior-only 2-level vertebrectomy and fusion in a medically complex patient with lumbar metastasis: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2024Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of surgical intervention on survival, ambulatory capacity, complications and readmissions following treatment for lumbar metastases. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe identified all adult patients treated for lumbar metastases between 2005-2017. To limit the potential for inherent bias to influence determinations, we used principal component analysis to identify confounders to be included in multivariable testing. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, followed by Bayesian analysis to generate conservative estimates of effect size and 95% confidence intervals (CI). In a sensitivity test, analyses were repeated in a population where patients who died before they could initiate treatment were excluded.
resultsIn the period under study, we identified 571 patients who met inclusion criteria. Twenty-one percent of the cohort received a surgical intervention. Bayes regression indicated surgical intervention was independently associated with decreased mortality at 6-months (odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95% CI 0.34, 0.68) and 1-year (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.51, 0.76), along with lower odds of being non-ambulatory at 6-months following presentation (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.18, 0.45). Surgery was also associated with increased odds of complications (OR 1.60; 95% CI 1.24, 2.06) and readmissions (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.09, 1.72). Numerous clinical characteristics were found to be associated with the outcomes of interest including serum albumin, lung metastases and vertebral body collapse.
conclusionsGiven the favorable outcomes associated with the incorporation of surgery as a component of treatment, we believe that such interventions may be considered part of the treatment approach in patients with lumbar 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.