ReviewEndocrine2019
Excess mortality after craniopharyngioma treatment: are we making progress?
Review in Endocrine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of treatment outcomes between combined chemotherapy-radiation therapy (chemo-RT) and radiation therapy alone (RT) for intracranial germ cell tumors in adolescent and young adult patients (AYA).Discover oncology · 2025Article
- A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial of Intranasal Oxytocin to Promote Weight Loss in Individuals With Hypothalamic Obesity.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2023Article
- Deep-learning-based automatic segmentation and classification for craniopharyngiomas.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Socio-behavioral dysfunction in disorders of hypothalamic-pituitary involvement: The potential role of disease-induced oxytocin and vasopressin signaling deficits.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2022Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Transcranial and Endoscopic Endonasal Surgery for Craniopharyngiomas: A Single-Institution Experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCraniopharyngioma is associated with an increased risk of mortality even after surgical, radiotherapeutic and hormone supplementations. Previous studies using different designs showed a possible trend of decreasing mortality in recent years. This review summarises studies reporting standardised mortality ratio (SMR) after craniopharyngioma treatment, as well as the bias and confounding in these studies to plan further researches.
methodsPubMed and Embase was searched for manuscripts published before October 2018 using medical subject heading terms ("craniopharyngioma" or "hypopituitarism" and "mortality").
resultsEight studies reported SMR after craniopharyngioma treatment, with a total of 2802 patients. The subgroup meta-analysis using random effects model was conducted to pool the SMR, which was 6.2 (95% CI 4.1-9.4) before 2010 and 2.9 (95% CI 2.2-3.8) after 2010 (subgroup test p < 0.01), respectively. Misclassification (one study) and selection bias (six studies) either inflated or deflated the result. The trend of increasing survival rate over the time was observed in studies without reporting SMR. Female patients, childhood-onset disease, hydrocephalus, tumour recurrence, body mass index and panhypopituitarism were identified as the important risk factors for excess mortality.
conclusionsThough bias and confounding existed across studies, the decreasing SMR and increasing survival rate over the time was in favour of a real signal. It is necessary to launch studies to further investigate the morality and risk factors after multidisciplinary treatment of craniopharyngioma in a hospital-based manner, using the modern statistical method to adjust for bias and confounding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.