ArticleBMC research notes2025
The use of the Baumber scoring system for metastatic disease of the vertebral column.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe prognostic assessment of metastatic spinal disease is predominantly tumour, rather than patient based. In 2021, Baumber et al. published a prognostic scoring system based on the patient as a whole rather than the tumour within the patient for metastatic disease of the appendicular skeleton. This paper assesses that prediction formula in those with metastatic disease of the spine.
resultsSurvival was recorded for 65 individuals who underwent surgery for spinal metastatic disease. Using the same parameters and hazard ratio as Baumber, the projected survival was longer than actually occurred (over-prediction of 39% at 6 months and 54% at 12 months). The relative contributions of the individual parameters as part of the overall survival was different between the groups with a greater contribution seen if the individual had hyponatraemia, hypoalbuminaemia and low levels of creatinine. The reasons for the differences seen between the spinal and appendicular groups with regards to these parameters are not clear but may represent a poorer level of general health or the behaviour of different types and subtypes of malignancy. Further work is required to develop a specific tool for the calculation of prognosis in a metastatic spinal cohort using a general health perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.