ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Validation of nine prognostic models in patients with bone metastases undergoing surgery.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to 1) assess the prognostic performance of established prediction models for mortality in patients with spine and extremity bone metastases, 2) evaluate their performance in clinically relevant subgroups, and 3) study the importance of relevant patient characteristics for mortality prediction.
methodsBetween 29th May, 2000 and 21st April, 2022, a total of 526 patients (median age 67.0 years, interquartile range [IQR] 58.1 - 74.0 years], 271 males; median follow-up 267 days [IQR 86 - 856 days]) undergoing surgery for spine or extremity bone metastases were retrospectively included. Nine prognostic models were evaluated in the entire cohort (n = 526), and separately in subgroups treated for spine (n = 224) or extremity (n = 302) metastases. Cox-regression and logistic regression models were used, as appropriate. Harrell's c-statistic, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) and Brier score were used as performance metrics.
resultsWhen assessed in the entire cohort, models by Sorensen et al. (AUC 12 months 0.834), Janssen et al. (c-index 0.711) and Katagiri et al. (c-index 0.699) achieved highest discriminatory performance. Likewise, all three models performed best when studied in the spine subgroup (Sorensen et al.: AUC 12 months 0.826; Janssen et al.: c-index 0.723; Katagiri et al.: c-index 0.717), although the models by Sorensen et al. and Janssen et al. had been developed for patients with extremity metastasis. Performance of all models was slightly lower when assessed in the extremity subgroup. Haemoglobin levels and tumour profile (i.e. primary histology) ranked among the most important predictors, consistent across subgroups.
conclusionsOur study suggests particularly helpful predictive performance of the models by Sorensen et al. and Janssen et al. in both patients with extremity metastases and patients with spine metastases undergoing surgery. Given that we only included patients undergoing surgery, additional validation studies in conservatively treated patients are warranted.
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.