Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26562670›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Pituitary Stalk Interruption Syndrome from Infancy to Adulthood: Clinical, Hormonal, and Radiological Assessment According to the Initial Presentation.

Céline Bar, Charline Zadro, Gwenaelle Diene, Isabelle Oliver, Catherine Pienkowski, Béatrice Jouret, Audrey Cartault, Zeina Ajaltouni, Jean-Pierre Salles, Annick Sevely and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Pedigree WithClinical case reports · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

12 authors.

Céline BarEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Charline ZadroNeuroradiology Unit, Purpan University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Gwenaelle DieneEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Isabelle OliverEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Catherine PienkowskiEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Béatrice JouretEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Audrey CartaultEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Zeina AjaltouniEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Jean-Pierre SallesEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Annick SevelyNeuroradiology Unit, Purpan University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Maithé TauberEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.
Thomas EdouardEndocrine, Bone Diseases, Genetics, Obesity, and Gynecology Unit, Children's Hospital, University Hospital, Toulouse, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with pituitary stalk interruption syndrome (PSIS) are initially referred for hypoglycemia during the neonatal period or growth retardation during childhood. PSIS is either isolated (nonsyndromic) or associated with extra-pituitary malformations (syndromic).

objectiveTo compare baseline characteristics and long-term evolution in patients with PSIS according to the initial presentation. STUDY

designSixty-seven patients with PSIS were included. Data from subgroups were compared: neonates (n = 10) versus growth retardation patients (n = 47), and syndromic (n = 32) versus nonsyndromic patients (n = 35).

resultsNeonates displayed a more severe hormonal and radiological phenotype than children referred for growth retardation, with a higher incidence of multiple hormonal deficiencies (100% versus 34%; P = 0.0005) and a nonvisible anterior pituitary lobe (33% versus 2%; P = 0.0017). Regular follow-up of growth might have allowed earlier diagnosis in the children with growth retardation, as decreased growth velocity and growth retardation were present respectively 3 and 2 years before referral. We documented a progressive worsening of endocrine impairment throughout childhood in these patients. Presence of extra-pituitary malformations (found in 48%) was not associated with more severe hormonal and radiological characteristics. Growth under GH treatment was similar in the patient groups and did not vary according to the pituitary MRI findings.

conclusionsPSIS diagnosed in the neonatal period has a particularly severe hormonal and radiological phenotype. The progressive worsening of endocrine impairment throughout childhood justifies periodic follow-up to check for additional hormonal deficiencies.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolFemaleGrowth DisordersHormone Replacement TherapyHormonesHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePituitary DiseasesPituitary GlandHormones

Identifiers

PMID26562670
PMCPMC4643020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.