The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease
Open accessAbstract
Radiotherapy has been the primary therapy for managing metastatic spinal disease; however, surgery that decompresses the spinal cord circumferentially, followed by reconstruction and immediate stabilization, has also proven effective. We provide a quantitative comparison between the "new" surgery and radiotherapy, based on articles that report on ambulatory status before and after treatment, age, sex, primary neoplasm pathology, and spinal disease distribution. Ambulation was categorized as "success" or "rescue" (proportion of patients ambulatory after treatment and proportion regaining ambulatory function, respectively). Secondary outcomes were also analyzed. We calculated cumulative success and rescue rates for our ambulatory measurements and quantified heterogeneity using a mixed-effects model. We investigated the source of the heterogeneity in both a univariate and multivariate manner with a meta-regression model. Our analysis included data from 24 surgical articles (999 patients) and 4 radiation articles (543 patients), mostly uncontrolled cohort studies (Class III). Surgical patients were 1.3 times more likely to be ambulatory after treatment and twice as likely to regain ambulatory function. Overall ambulatory success rates for surgery and radiation were 85% and 64%, respectively. Primary pathology was the principal factor determining survival. We present the first known formal meta-analysis using data from nonrandomized clinical studies. Although we attempted to control for imbalances between the surgical and radiation groups, significant heterogeneity undoubtedly still exists. Nonetheless, we believe the differences in the outcomes indicate a true difference resulting from treatment. We conclude that surgery should usually be the primary treatment with radiation given as adjuvant therapy. Neurologic status, overall health, extent of disease (spinal and extraspinal), and primary pathology all impact proper treatment selection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta‐Analysis Of Controlled Clinical Trials
Whitehead, A. (2002) · doi:10.1002/0470854200 · Cited by 827
Cited by
Patchell, R. A., Tibbs, P. A., Regine, W. F., Payne, R., Saris, S., Kryscio, R. J., Mohiuddin, M., & Young, B. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66954-1 · Cited by 2,388
Metadata
- Authors
- Klimo, P., Thompson, C. J., Kestle, J. R. W., & Schmidt, M. H.
- Venue
- Neuro-Oncology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-76
- ISSN
- 1522-8517 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-5866
- OpenAlex
- W2169061127
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1215/s1152851704000262
- The paper
- Klimo, P., Thompson, C. J., Kestle, J. R. W., & Schmidt, M. H. (2005). A meta-analysis of surgery versus conventional radiotherapy for the treatment of metastatic spinal epidural disease. Neuro-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1215/s1152851704000262
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.