ReviewJournal of bone oncology2025
Comparative analysis of aggressiveness in giant cell tumor of bone between upper and lower extremities: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of bone oncology, 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.
- Campanacci stage and cortical destruction predict functional outcomes in giant cell tumor of bone.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of CD3 and CD20 Lymphocytes and Mast Cells in the Microenvironment of Central Giant Cell Granuloma, Peripheral Giant Cell Granuloma, and Giant Cell Tumor of Bone.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Giant cell tumor of bone (GCTB) is among the most prevalent benign primary bone tumors, characterized by its potential for aggressive local recurrence, soft tissue invasion, and, though rare, lung metastasis. Emerging evidence suggests unique behavioral patterns of GCTB in extremities. This study seeks to rigorously compare the aggressiveness of GCTB in the upper versus lower extremities, centering on recurrence rates. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, sourced data from MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, CINAHL/EBSCO, and reference lists of pertinent studies. Two independent reviewers screened studies, with discrepancies resolved by discussion. Eligible studies included a minimum of 10 participants. Data extraction and analysis were performed by an additional team of two researchers. Results: Out of 1,283 studies spanning from 1984 to 2023, 30 met eligibility, encompassing 2,672 participants. The mean age was 32.77 ± 12.99 years, with an average follow-up of 75.53 ± 65.88 months. GCTB predominantly affected the lower extremities, accounting for 1,937 cases. Notably, comparisons of aggressiveness between upper and lower extremity GCTB revealed no statistically significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.56 for Surgery Group; OR = 1.16, p = 0.45 for Local Adjuvant Group; and OR = 1.71, p = 0.32 for Drug/Denosumab Group). Conclusion: This analysis underscores the lower extremities as the primary site for GCTB but finds no significant difference in aggressiveness between upper and lower extremities. These findings challenge assumptions about GCTB behavior based on tumor location and highlight the need for further investigation to fully elucidate the complex biology of extremity GCTB.
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.