SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2025
Reporting the Pooled Last Follow-up Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score Underestimates Functional Improvements Seen Over Time.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score is the most commonly used functional outcome tool in Orthopaedic Oncology. However, there are no published recommendations on how to collect, analyze, and report these data. To address this knowledge gap, we performed (1) a systematic review to analyze the methodology of reporting MSTS scores and (2) an analysis of two different reporting methods (pooled last follow-up versus longitudinal time based).
methodsThe mean MSTS score and length of follow-up were calculated using data provided in articles included in the systematic review. Paired t-tests were used to compare mean MSTS scores calculated at standardized postoperative intervals versus mean MSTS scores calculated from last follow-up time points using prospectively collected data from a single institutional database.
resultsMore than 300 articles met inclusion criteria. Most authors reported a single pooled score calculated from MSTS scores obtained at the patients' last follow-up visits (91.6%, n = 356). When comparing this method (pooled reporting) versus longitudinal time-based reporting, the pooled MSTS scores were only comparable to the MSTS scores at the 6-month postoperative visit. The pooled last follow-up scores underestimated MSTS scores obtained after 6 months (P < 0.0001 at 1 year and P = 0.0047 at 3 years). Improvements were seen in the MSTS domains after the 6-month visit (average time to stability was 1.8 years).
conclusionThe most common historical method of reporting MSTS scores, the pooled last follow-up method, underestimates functional improvements observed during long-term follow-up. Longitudinal time-based reporting provides more accurate representation of the functional outcomes over time.
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.