Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36128836›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Evaluation of different scoring systems for spinal metastases based on a Chinese cohort.

Zhehuang Li, Liangyu Guo, Bairu Guo, Peng Zhang, Jiaqiang Wang, Xin Wang, Weitao Yao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. 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 · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Zhehuang LiDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Liangyu GuoDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Bairu GuoDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Jiaqiang WangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Xin WangDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.
Weitao YaoDepartment of Musculoskeletal Oncology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0336-6249

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Spinal NeoplasmsEast Asian PeopleHumansPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness Indexpredictionprognosisspine metastasessurgerysurvival

Identifiers

PMID36128836
PMCPMC9972034

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.