ArticleCancers2024
Carbon Instrumentation in Patients with Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently carbon spinal implants have been introduced in the treatment of patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). This is expected to decrease the deflection of radiation and improve diagnostic imaging and radiotherapy when compared to titanium implants. The aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of spinal carbon instrumentation (CI) in patients with MSCC in a large cohort study. A total of 163 patients received instrumentation between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2021. A total of 80 were stabilized with CI and 83 with TI. The outcome measures were surgical revision, postsurgical survival, peri-operative bleeding, and surgery time. The peri-operative blood loss in the CI-group was significantly lower than that in the TI-group: 450mL vs. 630mL, (
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.