Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35604660›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2022

Treatment of Metastatic Spinal Disease; what the Radiologist needs to know.

Stephen Supple, Shahjehan Ahmad, Santhosh Gaddikeri, Miral D Jhaveri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evidence-based management of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC): expert recommendations for standardizing care in Spain.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Stephen SuppleRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Shahjehan AhmadRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Santhosh GaddikeriRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Miral D JhaveriRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advancements in technology and multidisciplinary management have revolutionized the treatment of spinal metastases. Imaging plays a pivotal role in determining the treatment course for spinal metastases. This article aims to review the relevant imaging findings in spinal metastases from the perspective of the treating clinician, describe the various treatment options, and discuss factors influencing choice for each available treatment option. Cases that once required radical surgical resection or low-dose conventional external beam radiation therapy, or both, are now being managed with separation surgery, spine stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy, or both, with decreased morbidity, improved local control, and more durable pain control. The primary focus in determining treatment choice is now on tumor control outcomes, treatment-related morbidity, and quality of life.

Indexed as

Neoplasms, Second PrimaryRadiosurgerySpinal NeoplasmsHumansQuality of LifeRadiologistsSpine

Identifiers

PMID35604660
PMCPMC10996317

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.