SynthesisJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2026
Prevalence and risk factors of distant metastasis among Chinese osteosarcoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to conduct a meta-analysis integrating multiple literature sources to explore the risk factors for distant metastasis (DM) in osteosarcoma (OS).
methodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science (up to August 16, 2025) for observational studies on risk factors for DM in OS. A meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. After data extraction, STATA 15.0 was used to calculate the pooled odds ratio (OR) values and 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThis meta-analysis included 12 studies involving 16,656 patients, of which 2,540 cases had DM, with a prevalence of 15.24%. The meta-analysis results showed that the risk factors for DM in OS were associated with male gender [OR = 0.71, 95%CI (0.59, 0.84), P < 0.001], T2 [OR = 2.26, 95%CI (1.85, 2.75), P < 0.001], T3 [OR = 4.37, 95%CI (2.84, 6.73), P < 0.001], TX [OR = 2.72, 95%CI (1.31, 5.63), P = 0.007], N1 [OR = 4.05, 95%CI (2.29, 7.19), P < 0.001], NX [OR = 2.70, 95%CI (1.40, 5.19), P = 0.003], tumor size (> 10 cm) [OR = 3.37, 95%CI (2.17, 5.22), P < 0.001], tumor size (unknown) [OR = 3.81, 95%CI (2.60, 5.58), P < 0.001], primary site surgery [OR = 0.32, 95%CI (0.17, 0.60), P < 0.001], and bone metastases [OR = 5.81, 95%CI (4.09, 8.24), P < 0.001], but not with tumor grade (low, unknown), tumor size (5-10 cm), axial bone, or radiotherapy.
conclusionThis and previous studies demonstrate that DM in OS is influenced by multiple known risk factors, most of which can be identified during preoperative assessment. The crucial step lies in translating these preoperative insights into concrete postoperative preventive actions. This approach holds significant value for improving clinical management quality and formulating individualized postoperative follow-up and intervention plans. These findings, derived from clinical data within a Chinese population, are particularly applicable to the management of OS patients in China, offering tailored guidance for this demographic.
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.