Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35924121›Full record

ReviewThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2022

A Radiologists' Guide to En Bloc Resection of Primary Tumors in the Spine: What Does the Surgeon Want to Know?

E Smith, G Hegde, M Czyz, S Hughes, S Haleem, M Grainger, S L James, R Botchu

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Primary Osseous Malignancies of the Spine.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

E SmithDepartment of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
G HegdeDepartment of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8889-4667
M CzyzDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
S HughesDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
S HaleemDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
M GraingerDepartment of Spinal Surgery, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
S L JamesDepartment of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
R BotchuDepartment of Musculoskeletal Imaging, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Royal Orthopaedic Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

En bloc resection in the spine is performed for both primary and metastatic bone lesions and has been proven to lengthen disease-free survival and decrease the likelihood of local recurrence. It is a complex procedure, which requires a thorough multi-disciplinary approach. This article will discuss the role of the radiologist in characterizing the underlying tumor pathology, staging the tumor and helping to predict possible intraoperative challenges for en bloc resection of primary bone lesions. The postoperative appearances and complications following en bloc resection in the spine will be considered in subsequent articles.

Indexed as

en blocprimary tumorsspine

Identifiers

PMID35924121
PMCPMC9340175
OpenAlexW4281608679

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.