SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
Prediction models for subsequent vertebral fractures after percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty: a systematic review and critical appraisal.
Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically review and critically appraise existing risk prediction models for SVFs following PVP or PKP, with emphasis on methodological quality, model performance, and clinical applicability.
methodsDatabases were conducted from inception to December 2025 for relevant studies that developed or validated multivariable models predicting subsequent vertebral fractures after PVP or PKP. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Methodological quality and applicability were assessed using the PROBAST framework.
resultsA total of 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. The identified models were primarily derived using logistic regression or various machine learning. Frequently incorporated predictors comprised bone mineral density, patient age, cement leakage, cement dispersion pattern, and use of anti-osteoporosis medication. Reported discrimination performance ranged from 0.664 to 0.998 (AUC or C-index). However, calibration measures and decision curve analysis were insufficiently described in several studies. And every model was considered to have a high overall risk of bias.
conclusionsAlthough existing models demonstrate promising discriminatory performance, their high risk of bias and limited external validation substantially restrict clinical applicability. Future research should prioritize prospective, multicenter studies with adequate sample sizes and external validation to enhance robustness and transportability.
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.