Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40090978›Full record

SynthesisEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2025

Prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures after vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dan Sun, Yuhang Wen, Qiongge Yu, Yu Long, Yuyan Liu, Yue Zhou, Yufeng Yu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in 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, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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

7 authors.

Dan SunCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yuhang WenCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Qiongge YuCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yu LongCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yuyan LiuCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yue ZhouCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yufeng YuCollege of Nursing, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China. 19902026@cdutcm.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after vertebral augmentation (VA), thereby providing a reference for constructing and improving such models.

methodsPubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to July 13, 2024. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the prediction model studies; STATA 15.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on the area under the curve (AUC) values of the model validation and the common predictors used in model construction.

resultsA total of 13 studies were included, establishing 13 risk prediction models, with a total sample size of 3,083 patients. The AUC values of the included models ranged from 0.72 to 0.988. Of the included studies, 11 conducted internal validation, while two performed external validation. According to the PROBAST evaluation, all 13 studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yet demonstrated good applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined AUC value for the 5 validation models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97). Notably, bone cement leakage (OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60), age (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36), and a history of vertebral fractures (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13) were identified as significant high-risk factors for AVF after VA.

conclusionThe risk prediction models for AVF after VA performed well, but exhibited a high risk of bias. It is recommended that future studies should consider selecting more appropriate machine learning algorithms and conducting large-sample, multicenter studies. Meanwhile, healthcare providers should focus on patients with bone cement leakage, advanced age, and a previous history of vertebral fractures, remaining vigilant for the potential occurrence of AVF.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsSpinal FracturesVertebroplastyHumansRisk AssessmentAdjacent vertebral fractureOsteoporosisOsteoporotic vertebral compression fractureRisk prediction modelSystematic reviewVertebral augmentation

Identifiers

PMID40090978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.