ArticleGlobal spine journal2025
Six-Month Survivorship Prediction in Spinal Metastatic Patients by Oncologists Shows Reliable Prognostication.
Article in Global spine journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designA retrospective analysis of oncologist-provided prognoses vs actual survival outcomes of patients referred with Metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) to a supra-regional multidisciplinary team (MDT).
objectivesPrognostic scoring systems, such as the revised Tokuhashi, are commonly used to help guide the treatment of MSCC. However, scoring systems do not accommodate for the improved outcomes of contemporary cancer therapy. Oncologist-provided prognoses play an important role in real world rapid decision making. There is a paucity of evidence assessing the accuracy of the oncologist-provided prognosis. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate this.
methodsData was captured between January 2015 and December 2018. Patients were split into 2 groups: Group 1 (prognosis estimated <6 months) and Group 2 (prognosis estimated >6 months). Median overall survival (mOS) and hazard ratio for death (HR) was assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of the oncologist's prognosis.
results829 patients were included. mOS in Group 1 was 5.8 months (95% CI 4.2-7.4 m), and in Group 2 mOS was not reached. Log rank test gave a Chi
conclusionsOncologist-provided prognosis is accurate in this cohort of unselected, consecutive MSCC patients. It reduced reliance on scoring systems that can become outdated. Given the rapid progress in cancer treatment, the oncologist's prognostic prediction is integral in efficient and effective MSCC management to help rapidly determine surgical candidacy.
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.