Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42005185›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Prognostic Models for Patient Selection in Palliative Bone Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review.

Filipa A Martins, Nádia Brito, Domingos Sousa

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Filipa A MartinsRadiotherapy, Centro Hospital Universitário São João, Porto, PRT.
Nádia BritoFamily Medicine, Unidade de Saúde Familiar Alfa Beja, Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Alentejo, Beja, PRT.
Domingos SousaHealth Sciences, Universidade da Beira Interior, Covilhã, PRT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Palliative radiotherapy is a well-established treatment for symptomatic bone metastases, but patients with a vital prognosis of under 3 months may not experience benefit, making accurate prognostic estimation essential for treatment selection. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified studies evaluating prognostic models in patients receiving bone metastases palliative radiotherapy. The risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). Nineteen studies were included, most retrospective and heterogeneous, with mixed primary tumour histology. A broad range of prognostic approaches was identified, including established scores, newly developed prognostic tools, validated models, and individual prognostic factors. Performance status was the strongest prognostic variable. Models found were heterogeneous, and most studies had a high or unclear risk of bias. This PRISMA review highlights that prognostic models may support patient selection for palliative radiotherapy, but given the heterogeneity of patients and clinical settings, their use requires robust external validation and should be adequate to the local context, clinician experience, and patient characteristics.

Indexed as

bone metastasespalliative radiotherapyprognostic modelssurvival predictionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42005185
PMCPMC13091307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.