ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Unsuccessful external validation of the MAC-score for predicting increased MIB-1 index in patients with spinal meningiomas.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-Term Functional Outcomes Following Surgical Treatment of Spinal Schwannomas: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Cancers · 2024Article
- High grade spinal meningiomas: a rare but formidable challenge.Translational cancer research · 2023Article
- Review
- Review
- Analysis of demographics and the impact of adjuvant radiotherapy on a nationwide cohort of patients with high-grade spinal meningiomas.Neuro-oncology advancesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Recently, the MAC-spinal meningioma score (MAC-score) was proposed to preoperatively identify spinal meningioma patients with high MIB-1 indices. Risk factors were age ≥ 65 years, a modified McCormick score (mMCs) ≥ 2, and absence of tumor calcification. The aim of this study was to externally validate the MAC-score in an independent cohort. Methods: Using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria as in the original study, we performed a retrospective, single-center, population-based, cohort study that included patients who had undergone surgical treatment for spinal meningiomas between 2005 - 2017. Data was collected from patient charts and radiographic images. Validation was performed by applying the MAC-score to our cohort and evaluating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: In total, 108 patients were included. Baseline and outcome data were comparable to the original development study. An increased MIB-1 index (≥5%) was observed in 56 (52%) patients. AUC of the MAC-score in our validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.51 - 0.71), which corresponds to a poor discriminative ability. Conclusion: The MAC-score showed poor discriminative ability for MIB-1 index prediction in patients with spinal meningiomas. Moreover, the MAC-score rests on a weak theoretical and statistical foundation. Consequently, we argue against its clinical implementation.
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.