A scoping review on the surgical management of metastatic bone disease of the extremities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Management of metastatic bone disease of the extremities (MBD-E) is challenging, and surgical directions pose significant implications for overall patient morbidity and mortality. Recent literature reviews on the surgical management of MBD-E present a paucity of high-level evidence and global inconsistencies in study design. In order to steer productive research, a scoping review was performed to map and assess critical knowledge gaps. METHODS: The Arksey and O'Malley framework for scoping studies was followed. A comprehensive literature search identified a large body of literature pertaining to the surgical management of MBD-E. Study data and meta-data was extracted and presented using descriptive analytics and a thematic framework. Literature gaps were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty five studies from 1969 to 2017 were included. Studies were categorized into 11 separate themes, with the majority (63%) falling into the "surgical fixation strategies" theme, followed by "complications" at 7% and "prognosis and survival" at 6.2%. Less than 3% of studies were categorized in "patient related outcomes" or "epidemiology" themes. 89% of studies were retrospective and only 6 studies were of level 1 or 2 evidence. We identified a temporal increase in publication by decade, and all studies published on interventional radiology techniques or economic analyses were published after 2007 or 2009, respectively. 64.9% of studies were published in Europe and 20.3% were published in North America. Average patient age was 62 (± 5.2 years), and breast was the most common primary tumour (28%), followed by lung (17%) and kidney (15%). In terms of surgical location, 75% of operations involved the femur, followed by the humerus at 22% and tibia at 3%. CONCLUSIONS: We present a descriptive overview of the current published literature on the surgical management of MBD-E. Critical knowledge gaps have been identified through the development of a thematic framework. Consolidation of literary gaps must involve bolstered efforts towards patient and family-engaged research initiatives and assessment of patient-related surgical outcomes. Multi-disciplinary engagement in developing prospective research will also help guide evidence-based personalized practice for these patients. By building on existing comprehensive patient databases and registries, knowledge on survival and prognostic parameters can be greatly improved.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».