Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34018007›Full record

SynthesisSkeletal radiology2021

Efficacy and safety of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound for the treatment of painful bone metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joe D Baal, William C Chen, Ulysis Baal, Sagar Wagle, Jed H Baal, Thomas M Link, Matthew D Bucknor

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Skeletal radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Bibliometric analysis of high-intensity focused ultrasound.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. MR Imaging-Guided Focused Ultrasound for Breast Tumors.Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America · 2024
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Joe D BaalDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA.
William C ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, USA.
Ulysis BaalDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA.
Sagar WagleDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
Jed H BaalDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA.
Thomas M LinkDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA.
Matthew D BucknorDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, 185 Berry Street, Lobby 6, Suite 350, San Francisco, CA, 94107, USA. Matthew.bucknor@ucsf.edu.
University of California, San Francisco · USMayo Clinic · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo report the safety and efficacy of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound (MRgFUS) in the treatment of painful bone metastases through a systematic review and meta-analysis of pain scores before and after MRgFUS treatment and post-treatment adverse events. MATERIALS AND

methodsA comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed for studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of MRgFUS. The mean difference of pain scores (10-point visual analogue scale or numerical rating scale) between baseline and 1-month/3-month pain scores was collected and analyzed in a pooled meta-analysis. Post-treatment adverse events based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grading were recorded and the pooled prevalence was calculated.

resultsA total of 33 studies published between 2007 and 2019 were collected, resulting in a total sample size of 1082 patients. The majority of the studies were prospective with a reported follow-up period of 3 months. The pooled proportion of patients that achieved pain relief from MRgFUS (complete response or partial response [≥ 2-point improvement of pain score]) was 79% (95% CI 73-83%). The pooled 1-month and 3-month mean difference in pain score were - 3.8 (95% CI - 4.3; - 3.3) and - 4.4 (95% CI - 5.0; - 3.7), respectively. The overall rate of high-grade (CTCAE grade 3 or higher) and low-grade (CTCAE grade 2 or lower) MRgFUS-related adverse events were 0.9% and 5.9%, respectively.

conclusionMRgFUS is an effective procedure that is able to provide significant pain palliation for patients with symptomatic bone metastases with a favorable safety profile.

Indexed as

Bone NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyPainProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeBone metastasesEfficacyMeta-analysisMRgFUSPalliativeSafety

Identifiers

PMID34018007
PMCPMC8536557
OpenAlexW3162688046

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.