ArticleBrain & spine2025
Treatment approaches for multiple Myeloma vertebral column lesions - Results from an international survey distributed to the AO spine knowledge forum tumor.
Article in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Vertebral fractures and epidural compression are common complications in Multiple Myeloma (MM). Although non-surgical management is generally preferred, internationally accepted management guidelines are lacking. This study aimed to assess current international treatment approaches and clinical conditions guiding decision-making in MM vertebral lesions. Research question: Assessing international treatment standards for MM vertebral column lesions. Material and methods: A survey was distributed to members of the AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor, an expert forum specialized on the treatment of oncologic spine disease. The survey consisted of 25 questions, of which 15 assessed the participant's background, clinical expertise, and experienced treatment standards regarding MM vertebral lesions, followed by ten fictional case examples with seven possible treatment scenarios each. Results: 51 international experts completed the survey, 51 % being of orthopedic, and 44 % of neurosurgical background, while 5 % were radio-oncologists. 84 % of the participants stated they "see vertebral lesions in MM in general as a non-surgical disease". As strongest indicators to perform surgery, neurological deficits (74 %), and potentially unstable lesions (20 %) were chosen. Clinical and radiological follow-up is performed by 83 %, however only in 46 % at defined intervals. 89 % would choose "less invasive" surgical strategies in MM than in similar lesions related to metastatic spine disease. Discussion and conclusion: The participating experts agreed towards a more restrained and less invasive management of MM patients, however the applicability of surgical scores, standards for follow-up, and indications as well as surgical strategies for MM vertebral lesions varied widely, illustrating the need for international guidelines standardizing treatment.
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.