SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Systematic review of 99 extremity bone malignancy survival prediction models.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Circular RNAs in osteosarcoma: mechanistic insights, autophagy regulation, and potential therapeutic strategies.Cancer cell international · 2026Review
- Differential survival outcomes in upper versus lower extremity metastatic bone disease: a retrospective comparative cohort analysis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious prediction models have been developed for extremity metastasis and sarcoma. This systematic review aims to evaluate extremity metastasis and sarcoma models using the utility prediction model (UPM) evaluation framework.
methodsWe followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane to identify articles presenting original prediction models with 1-year survival outcome for extremity metastasis and 5-year survival outcome for sarcoma. Identified models were assessed using the UPM score (0-16), categorized as excellent (12-16), good (7-11), fair (3-6), or poor (0-2). A total of 5 extremity metastasis and 94 sarcoma models met inclusion criteria and were analyzed for design, validation, and performance.
resultsWe assessed 5 models for extremity metastasis and 94 models for sarcoma. Only 4 out of 99 (4%) models achieved excellence, 1 from extremity metastasis and 3 from sarcoma. The majority were rated good (62%; 61/99), followed by fair (31%, 31/99) and poor (3%, 3/99).
conclusionsMost predictive models for extremity metastasis and sarcoma fall short of UPM excellence. Suboptimal study design, limited external validation, and the infrequent availability of web-based calculators are main drawbacks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This study is classified as Level 2a evidence according to the Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Trial registration This study was registered in PROSEPRO (CRD42022373391, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=373391 ).
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.