ArticleCancers2023
Efficacy of Total En Bloc Spondylectomy versus Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for Single Spinal Metastasis.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Case of salvageSurgical neurology international · 2026Article
- Article
- Maximal feasible resection versus hybrid therapy in spinal metastases: an updated narrative review.World journal of surgical oncology · 2025Review
- Posterior-only totalSurgical neurology international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare total en bloc spondylectomy (TES) with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for single spinal metastasis, we undertook a single center retrospective study. We identified patients who had undergone TES or SABR for a single spinal metastasis between 2000 and 2019. Medical records and images were reviewed for patient and tumor characteristics, and oncologic outcomes. Patients who received TES were matched to those who received SABR to compare local control and survival. A total of 89 patients were identified, of whom 20 and 69 received TES and SABR, respectively. A total of 38 matched patients were analyzed (19 TES and 19 SABR). The median follow-up period was 54.4 (TES) and 26.1 months (SABR) for matched patients. Two-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 66.7% and 72.2% in the TES and 38.9% and 50.7% in the SABR group, respectively. At the final follow-up of the matched cohorts, no significant differences were noted in OS (
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.