ArticleThe oncologist2025
Prediction of survival in patients suffering from spinal metastases: a prospective, multicenter validation study.
Article in The oncologist, 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.
- Safety and efficacy of carbon fiber-reinforced polyetheretherketone implants in primary and metastatic spinal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe treatment of patients with symptomatic spinal metastasis is challenging, and it warrants a multi-disciplinary approach. When surgery is considered, the expected survival time at three months might be an important argument in the discussion. With the advent of new treatment modalities, however, validation of an existing prediction model is warranted.
methodsValidation study with inclusion of patients after informed consent from May 2021 through December 2023 in one academic hospital and two large non-academic medical centers. Information was collected on the following variables: sex, primary tumor type, treatment of the primary tumor with curative intention, cervical location of the metastasis, and the highest Karnofsky Performance Score in 24 hours before presentation. The validation set included 378 patients with symptomatic spinal metastasis. The derivation set consisted of 567 patients. The main outcome are C-index, calibration slope, D-statistic, R2D, Brier score, joint test for misspecification. REULTS: The model had a C-index value of 0.68 ± 0.02 (95% CI: 0.64-0.72). Calibration analysis yielded a calibration slope of 0.66 ± 0.09 (95% CI: 0.50-0.83). The D-statistic was 0.92, and the R2D value was 0.17. The model performed well, especially at three months, with a Brier score of 0.44. Although no mismatch was observed graphically, the joint test for misspecification yielded a statistically significant value. The model was therefore adjusted slightly, based on all 945 patients included in the original model and the current study.
conclusionThe prediction model performed reasonably well in estimating survival at three months in patients with symptomatic spinal metastasis.
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.