Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11081161›Full record

ArticlePituitary1999

Invasive pituitary adenomas: significance of proliferation parameters.

A P Amar, D R Hinton, M D Krieger, M H Weiss

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pituitary, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. A 28 year old lady with a pituitary mass.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2012
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Clinical review: Pituitary carcinoma: difficult diagnosis and treatment.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2011
    Review
  18. My approach to pathology of the pituitary gland.Journal of clinical pathology · 2006
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

A P AmarDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. amar@hsc.usc.edu
D R Hinton
M D Krieger
M H Weiss

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although most pituitary adenomas behave in a purely benign fashion, microscopic invasion of the subjacent dura is very common, and clinically overt infiltration of the surrounding dura and bone is apparent at intraoperative inspection in about one third of cases. The factors governing invasive behavior remain unknown but are believed to be separate from those regulating cell proliferation. Histological features alone do not distinguish between benign, invasive, and malignant tumors of adenohypophyseal origin. Multiple attempts have been made to identify prognostic markers of aggressive behavior among these tumors. They include cytogenetic analysis of putative tumor suppressor genes or proto-oncogenes as well as immunohistochemical detection of cell-cycle specific antigens. At present, however, these analyses can neither distinguish the indolent pituitary adenoma from one that will pursue an invasive course, nor reliably predict the prognosis in individual patients.

Indexed as

Neoplasm InvasivenessAdenomaBiomarkers, TumorCell DivisionHumansIncidencePituitary NeoplasmsPredictive Value of TestsPrognosisBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.