ReviewNorth American Spine Society journal2025
A systematic review on frailty indices utilized in oncologic surgery and radiotherapy for metastatic spine disease: A critical appraisal of components and performance.
Review in North American Spine Society journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metastatic spinal tumor frailty index and New England spinal metastasis score show the most consistent performance for short-term postoperative outcomes: Single-center validation in 114 patients.North American Spine Society journal · 2026Article
- Prehabilitation in older adults with cancer: scoping review of surgical outcomes.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Article
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
Background: Frailty assessment is becoming increasingly important for risk stratification in metastatic spine disease (MSD) management. However, the optimal frailty assessment tool for this population remains undefined. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate frailty indices utilized in surgical and radiotherapeutic management of MSD by appraising their components and predictive performance. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos from inception until November 13, 2024 for studies exploring frailty indices in MSD management. Methodological quality assessment was undertaken using the Methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tools. We evaluated indices for comprehensiveness by assessing if they included measures across 8 dimensions (comorbidity burden, mobility, cognition, mood, social vulnerability, nutrition, energy, and function). We also assessed their predictive utility for mortality and complications. Results: Out of a total of 42 studies, 15 studies reporting on 61,663 patients (Mean age: 63 years; 44% female) met the inclusion criteria. All studies were of moderate quality based on MINORS analysis. Six frailty indices were identified, with all including comorbidities while none incorporating energy measures. The Hospital Frailty Risk Score was the most comprehensive (75% of frailty spectrum). Predictive performance varied considerably across studies, with inconsistent associations with complications and mortality after both: surgical and radiotherapeutic interventions. Conclusions: Contemporary frailty indices showed substantial heterogeneity in both composition and predictive performance for MSD outcomes. The inconsistent performance and incomplete capture of frailty dimensions underscored the need for developing a novel frailty index that incorporates oncologic factors and balances comprehensive evaluation with clinical feasibility to help guide treatment decisions between surgery and radiotherapy for patients with MSD.
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.