{"title":"Prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures after vertebral augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Dan Sun, Yuhang Wen, Qiongge Yu, Yu Long, Yuyan Liu, Yue Zhou, Yufeng Yu","doi":"10.1007/s00586-025-08785-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after vertebral augmentation (VA), thereby providing a reference for constructing and improving such models.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to July 13, 2024. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the prediction model studies; STATA 15.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on the area under the curve (AUC) values of the model validation and the common predictors used in model construction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 studies were included, establishing 13 risk prediction models, with a total sample size of 3,083 patients. The AUC values of the included models ranged from 0.72 to 0.988. Of the included studies, 11 conducted internal validation, while two performed external validation. According to the PROBAST evaluation, all 13 studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yet demonstrated good applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined AUC value for the 5 validation models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97). Notably, bone cement leakage (OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60), age (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36), and a history of vertebral fractures (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13) were identified as significant high-risk factors for AVF after VA.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The risk prediction models for AVF after VA performed well, but exhibited a high risk of bias. It is recommended that future studies should consider selecting more appropriate machine learning algorithms and conducting large-sample, multicenter studies. Meanwhile, healthcare providers should focus on patients with bone cement leakage, advanced age, and a previous history of vertebral fractures, remaining vigilant for the potential occurrence of AVF.</p>","PeriodicalId":12323,"journal":{"name":"European Spine Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Spine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-025-08785-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To systematically review published studies on risk prediction models for adjacent vertebral fractures (AVF) after vertebral augmentation (VA), thereby providing a reference for constructing and improving such models.
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, and SinoMed were searched from their inception to July 13, 2024. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the prediction model studies; STATA 15.0 software was used to perform a meta-analysis on the area under the curve (AUC) values of the model validation and the common predictors used in model construction.
Results: A total of 13 studies were included, establishing 13 risk prediction models, with a total sample size of 3,083 patients. The AUC values of the included models ranged from 0.72 to 0.988. Of the included studies, 11 conducted internal validation, while two performed external validation. According to the PROBAST evaluation, all 13 studies exhibited a high risk of bias, yet demonstrated good applicability. The results of meta-analysis showed that the combined AUC value for the 5 validation models was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.97). Notably, bone cement leakage (OR = 5.75, 95% CI: 3.43 ~ 9.60), age (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.05 ~ 1.36), and a history of vertebral fractures (OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 1.64 ~ 4.13) were identified as significant high-risk factors for AVF after VA.
Conclusion: The risk prediction models for AVF after VA performed well, but exhibited a high risk of bias. It is recommended that future studies should consider selecting more appropriate machine learning algorithms and conducting large-sample, multicenter studies. Meanwhile, healthcare providers should focus on patients with bone cement leakage, advanced age, and a previous history of vertebral fractures, remaining vigilant for the potential occurrence of AVF.
期刊介绍:
"European Spine Journal" is a publication founded in response to the increasing trend toward specialization in spinal surgery and spinal pathology in general. The Journal is devoted to all spine related disciplines, including functional and surgical anatomy of the spine, biomechanics and pathophysiology, diagnostic procedures, and neurology, surgery and outcomes. The aim of "European Spine Journal" is to support the further development of highly innovative spine treatments including but not restricted to surgery and to provide an integrated and balanced view of diagnostic, research and treatment procedures as well as outcomes that will enhance effective collaboration among specialists worldwide. The “European Spine Journal” also participates in education by means of videos, interactive meetings and the endorsement of educative efforts.
Official publication of EUROSPINE, The Spine Society of Europe