ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Mirels score at the humerus in metastatic bone disease: a narrative review.
Review in International orthopaedics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo critically evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mirels score for pathological fracture risk prediction at the humerus, and to determine whether site-specific factors warrant a revised approach to fracture risk stratification at this location.
methodsNarrative review. PubMed was searched without date restriction for studies addressing Mirels score validation at the humerus, alternative fracture risk assessment tools, and clinical outcomes of completed versus impending pathological humeral fracture. Additional studies were identified by manual reference screening.
resultsThree dedicated humeral validation studies report sensitivity of approximately 14% at the standard Mirels threshold of nine or more, equivalent to chance (area under the curve [AUC] 0.51-0.55). A larger cohort supports a revised threshold of eight or more with improved performance (AUC 0.82), identifying cortical breach as the dominant independent predictor of fracture (odds ratio 21.0). Humeral lesions receive lower Mirels scores and less frequent staging computed tomography than femoral lesions despite a higher fracture rate. Completed pathological humeral fracture is associated with increased one-year mortality (hazard ratio 1.28), higher reoperation risk (odds ratio 2.50), and a clinically significant rate of iatrogenic radial nerve palsy (up to 13.9%). Alternative quantitative tools, including computed tomography-based rigidity analysis and finite element analysis, have not been validated at the humerus.
conclusionThe Mirels score performs poorly at its standard threshold when applied to humeral lesions. A revised threshold incorporating cortical breach assessment, combined with systematic staging imaging of the humerus, may reduce avoidable morbidity. Prospective validation of a humerus-specific risk stratification tool is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525252What 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.