Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39470945›Full record

SynthesisClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2025

Diagnostic accuracy of imaging modalities for detection of spinal metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Netanja I Harlianto, Simone van der Star, Britt B M Suelmann, Pim A de Jong, Jorrit-Jan Verlaan, Wouter Foppen

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trends and postoperative complications of spinal metastasis surgery in Thailand between 2015 and 2024: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Diagnostic errors in spinal metastases: a systematic review of contributing clinical and systemic factors.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

Netanja I HarliantoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. netanjaharlianto@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8196-3949
Simone van der StarDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Britt B M SuelmannDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht & University Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Pim A de JongDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jorrit-Jan VerlaanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wouter FoppenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht & Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDetecting spinal metastases is highly relevant in patients with oncological disorders as it can affect the staging and treatment of their disease. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), FDG positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, bone scintigraphy (BS), and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) for spinal metastases detection.

methodsMedline, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched until March 2024 for diagnostic accuracy studies on spinal metastases detection (PROSPERO-registration: CRD42024540139). Data extraction and quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool were performed by two independent reviewers. Using bivariate random effects modeling, pooled sensitivities, specificities, and diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) were calculated, and hierarchical summary operating curves were constructed.

resultsTwenty-five studies (49 datasets), encompassing 3102 patients were included. Per-patient pooled sensitivities of CT, MRI, PET/CT, BS and SPECT were 70%, 93%, 82%, 75%, and 84%, respectively. Pooled specificities were 74%, 85%, 75%, 92%, and 81%, respectively. Per-lesion pooled sensitivities of CT, MRI, PET/CT, BS and SPECT were 76%, 91%, 92%, 77%, and 92%, respectively. Pooled specificities were 91%, 94%, 85%, 52%, and 86%, respectively. MRI had the highest DOR in per patient and lesion analyses.

conclusionMRI had highest diagnostic accuracy for spinal metastases detection on patient and lesion level, suggesting a broader use in addition to the routine staging CT, at least in patients at high risk and where the detection of a spinal metastasis could alter therapy decisions. Herein, results should be considered with the limitations of each modality.

Indexed as

Spinal NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingPositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographySensitivity and SpecificityTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyDiagnostic meta-analysisMagnetic resonance imagingOncologyPositron emission tomographySpinal metastases

Identifiers

PMID39470945
PMCPMC12033096

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.