Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31149155›Full record

ArticleActa endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005)

PITUITARY STALK INTERRUPTION SYNDROME: REPORT OF TWO CASES AND LITERATURE REVIEW.

C Lichiardopol, D M Albulescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta endocrinologica (Bucharest, Romania : 2005). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors.

C LichiardopolUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Dept. of Endocrinology, Craiova, Romania.
D M AlbulescuEmergency Clinical Hospital, Dept. of Endocrinology, Craiova, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pituitary stalk interruption syndrome (PSIS) consisting of the triad: ectopic posterior pituitary (EPP), thin or absent pituitary stalk and anterior pituitary hypoplasia is a rare pituitary malformation with variable degrees of pituitary insufficiency, from isolated growth hormone deficiency to TSH, gonadotropin and ACTH deficiency which may occur in time, with normo, hyper or hypoprolactinemia and central diabetes insipidus in up to 10% of cases. Also, extrapituitary malformations have been described in some cases. Genetic defects were identified only in 5% of cases. MRI findings are considered predictive for the endocrine phenotype. We aim to describe two cases with PSIS without central diabetes insipidus, anosmia and extrapituitary malformations, except for minor head dysmorphic features. The first case was referred at the age of 4 years for short stature (-4SDS for height, bone age 2 years), diagnosed with severe GH deficiency and developed central hypothyroidism and hypoprolactinemia during five-years follow-up. The second case, a 26 year old male with birth asphyxia, cryptorchidism, poor growth in childhood and adolescence (-3 to -4 height SDS), absent puberty and normal adult height (-1.18 SDS; bone age 15.5 years and active growth plates) had GH, TSH, ACTH deficiency and low normal PRL levels. Increasing medical awareness on PSIS clinical and endocrine heterogeneity may help a more early and accurate diagnosis. Corroboration of neuroimaging and endocrine data will improve our knowledge and understanding and will create premises for molecular diagnosis, genetic counseling and a better patients' management.

Indexed as

hypopituitarismmagnetic resonance imagingpituitary stalk interruption syndrome

Identifiers

PMID31149155
PMCPMC6525749

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.