ArticleCancer medicine2023
Evaluation of different scoring systems for spinal metastases based on a Chinese cohort.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Tree-based and sparse logistic models for predicting one-month postoperative performance status after surgery for spinal metastases.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Vertebral metastatic disease: A paradigm shift.Neuro-oncology advances · 2026Review
- Prospective external validation of a three-predictor frailty model for 90-day survival and complications following spinal metastasis surgery.Journal of bone oncology · 2026Article
- Prognostic Accuracy of Eight Scoring Systems in Untreated Patients with Spinal Metastases: A Comparative Study.Spine surgery and related research · 2026Article
- Article
- Artificial Intelligence Models for Predicting Outcomes in Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Does the posterior-only approach provide adequate treatment for cervical spine metastases with severe vertebral body compromise?European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence in bone Metastases: A systematic review in guideline adherence of 92 studies.Journal of bone oncology · 2025Review
- Factors associated with survival in patients with spinal metastases from lung cancer.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Impact of perioperative hemoglobin-related parameters on clinical outcomes in patients with spinal metastases: identifying key markers for blood management.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Imaging Recommendations for Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Central Nervous System Neoplasms in Adults: CNS Metastases.Cancers · 2024Review
- The Impact of Adjunct Medical Therapy on Survival after Spine Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Pooled Data Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
- Evaluation of different scoring systems for spinal metastases based on a Chinese cohort.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionsThe spine is one of the most common sites of metastasis for malignancies. This study aimed to compare the predictive performance of seven commonly used prognostic scoring systems for surgically treated spine metastases. It is expected to assist surgeons in selecting appropriate scoring systems to support clinical decision-making and better inform patients.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study involving 268 surgically treated patients with spine metastases between 2017 and 2020 at a single regional oncology center in China. The revised Tokuhashi, Tomita, modified Bauer, revised Katagiri, van der Linden, Skeletal Oncology Research Group (SORG) nomogram, and SORG machine-learning (ML) scoring systems were externally validated. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate sensitivity and specificity at different postoperative time points. The actual survival time was compared with the reference survival time provided in the original publication.
resultsIn the present study, the median survival was 16.6 months. The SORG ML scoring system demonstrated the highest accuracy in predicting 90-day (AUC: 0.743) and 1-year survival (AUC: 0.787). The revised Katagiri demonstrated the highest accuracy (AUC: 0.761) in predicting 180-day survival. The revised Katagiri demonstrated the highest accuracy (AUC: 0.779) in predicting 2-year survival. Based on this series, the actual life expectancy was underestimated compared with the original reference survival time.
conclusionsNone of the scoring systems can perform optimally at all time points and for all pathology types, and the reference survival times provided in the original study need to be updated. A cautious awareness of the underestimation by these models is of paramount importance in relation to current patients.
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.