Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37188160›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2023

The use of red flags during the referral chain of patients surgically treated for symptomatic spinal metastases.

Floris R van Tol, Isabelle M L P Kamm, Anne L Versteeg, Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk, Helena M Verkooijen, Cumher Oner, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities for detection of spinal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Floris R van TolDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Isabelle M L P KammDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anne L VersteegImaging Division, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Karijn P M SuijkerbuijkDepartment of Medical Oncology, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Helena M VerkooijenImaging Division, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Cumher OnerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Jorrit-Jan VerlaanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UMC Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The use of so-called "red flags" may be beneficial in identifying patients with metastatic spinal disease. This study examined the utility and efficacy of these red flags in the referral chain of patients surgically treated for spinal metastases. Methods: The referral chains from the onset of symptoms until surgical treatment for all patients receiving surgery for spinal metastases between March 2009 and December 2020 were reconstructed. The documentation of red flags, as defined by the Dutch National Guideline on Metastatic Spinal Disease, was assessed for each healthcare provider involved. Results: A total of 389 patients were included in the study. On average, 33.3% of red flags were documented as present, 3.6% were documented as absent, and 63.1% were undocumented. A higher rate of red flags documented as present was associated with a longer time to diagnosis, but a shorter time to definitive treatment by a spine surgeon. Moreover, red flags were documented as present more often in patients who developed neurological symptoms at any point during the referral chain than those who remained neurologically intact. Conclusions: The association of red flags with developing neurological deficits highlights their significance in clinical assessment. However, the presence of red flags was not found to decrease delays prior to referral to a spine surgeon, indicating that their relevance is currently not sufficiently recognized by healthcare providers. Raising awareness of symptoms indicative of spinal metastases may expedite timely (surgical) treatment and thus improve treatment outcome.

Indexed as

delaymetastatic spinal diseasered flagsspinal metastasessurgery

Identifiers

PMID37188160
PMCPMC10180360

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.