ReviewJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2026
Spinal cord Compression Outcomes Of Treatment (SCOOT) Delphi study.
Review in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Earlier diagnosis, advances in medical oncology and radiation modalities continue to improve cancer patients' survival length, leading to a rise in metastatic disease and metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC). Treatment approaches need a high level of individualisation, making management decisions for these patients challenging. Methods: A modified Delphi study with quantitative and qualitative analysis to identify thresholds for surgical intervention for MSCC patients and the factors underpinning those thresholds. A predefined expert panel was sent rounds of decision-making questionnaires on clinical vignettes of the most common primary tumours causing MSCC. The thresholds reached were based on RAND criteria and percentage agreement. Results: Twenty-four experts completed the first round, and 22 completed subsequent rounds. Experts had 312 years of experience managing MSCC patients. Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) was the most used scoring system. The primary tumour, neurological function at presentation, functional status, and spinal lesion type were important in decision-making. Age and visceral metastasis were less important. Overall, 74% would not operate on patients paralysed at presentation, while 33% would operate within 24 hours from the onset of paralysis. The surgical intervention threshold was a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 6/10, with 82% expected to achieve pain relief. Conclusions: Treatment algorithms were constructed from the experts' responses for each primary tumour type. Indications for surgery were spinal instability and a VAS of 6/10. Major factors influencing decision-making were prognosis and pain levels. Careful consideration should be given to lung, myeloma and unknown primaries.
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.