Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28942520›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2017

Follow-up of pineal cysts in children: is it necessary?

Miro-Pekka Jussila, Päivi Olsén, Niina Salokorpi, Maria Suo-Palosaari

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Systematic review of pineal cysts surgery in pediatric patients.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Imaging of Pineal Region Masses.Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Miro-Pekka JussilaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 50, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Päivi OlsénDepartment of Children and Adolescents, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 23, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Niina SalokorpiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 21, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland.
Maria Suo-PalosaariDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, P.O. Box 50, OYS, Oulu, 90029, Finland. maria.suo-palosaari@ppshp.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5500-7168
Oulu University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePineal cysts are common incidental findings in children undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Several studies have suggested MRI follow-up if the cyst is larger than 10 mm. However, cysts do not usually change during follow-up. Prevalence, growth, and structure of the pineal cysts were analyzed to decide if follow-up MRI is necessary.

methodsA retrospective review between 2010 and 2015 was performed using 3851 MRI examinations of children aged 0-16 years to detect pineal cysts having a maximum diameter ≥ 10 mm. Eighty-one children with pineal cysts were identified and 79 of them had been controlled by MRI. Cysts were analyzed for the size, growth, and structure.

resultsA total of 1.8% of the children had a pineal cyst with a diameter ≥ 10 mm. Cysts were present in 48 girls (59.3%) and 33 boys (40.7%). Most pineal cysts (70/79) did not significantly grow during the follow-up (median 10 months, range 3-145 months). A total of 11.4% (9/79) of the cysts grew with the biggest change measured from the outer cyst wall sagittal anteroposterior dimension (mean 3.4 mm ± 1.7 mm). Only one cyst grew more than 5 mm. We found no factors correlating with the cyst growth among 9 cysts that grew > 2 mm.

conclusionsA majority of pineal cysts remained unchanged during the MRI follow-up. Results of this study suggest that routine MRI follow-up of pineal cysts is not necessary in the absence of unusual radiological characteristics or related clinical symptoms.

Indexed as

AdolescentCentral Nervous System CystsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansIncidental FindingsInfantInfant, NewbornMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePineal GlandRetrospective StudiesBrain MRIChildrenFollow-upIncidental findingsPineal cyst

Identifiers

PMID28942520
OpenAlexW2757216185

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.