Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33406848›Full record

ArticleCephalalgia : an international journal of headache2021

Is pituitary MRI screening necessary in cluster headache?

Lou Grangeon, Emer O'Connor, Daisuke Danno, Thanh Mai Pham Ngoc, Sanjay Cheema, Erling Tronvik, Indran Davagnanam, Manjit Matharu

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cephalalgia : an international journal of headache, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Imaging in headache disorders.Australian prescriber · 2022
    Review
  4. Cluster Headache: A Review and Update in Treatment.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Lou GrangeonHeadache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK.
Emer O'ConnorHeadache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK.
Daisuke DannoHeadache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK.
Thanh Mai Pham NgocMathematics Institute of Orsay, Paris Sud University, Orsay, France.
Sanjay CheemaHeadache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5438-6549
Erling TronvikMathematics Institute of Orsay, Paris Sud University, Orsay, France.
Indran DavagnanamNorwegian Advisory Unit on Headaches, Trondheim, Norway.
Manjit MatharuHeadache and Facial Pain Group, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4960-2294
National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery · GBUniversité Paris-Sud · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the prevalence and clinical predictors of pituitary adenomas in cluster headache patients, in order to determine the necessity of performing dedicated pituitary magnetic resonance imaging in patients with cluster headache.

methodsA retrospective study was conducted of all consecutive patients diagnosed with cluster headache and with available brain magnetic resonance imaging between 2007 and 2017 in a tertiary headache center. Data including demographics, attack characteristics, response to treatments, results of neuroimaging, and routine pituitary function tests were recorded.

resultsSeven hundred and eighteen cluster headache patients attended the headache clinic; 643 underwent a standard magnetic resonance imaging scan, of whom 376 also underwent dedicated pituitary magnetic resonance imaging. Pituitary adenomas occurred in 17 of 376 patients (4.52%). Non-functioning microadenomas (n = 14) were the most common abnormality reported. Two patients, one of whom lacked the symptoms of pituitary disease, required treatment for their pituitary lesion. No clinical predictors of those adenomas were identified after multivariate analysis using random forests. Systematic pituitary magnetic resonance imaging scanning did not benefit even a single patient in the entire cohort.

conclusionThe prevalence of pituitary adenomas in cluster headache is similar to that reported in the general population, thereby precluding an over-representation of pituitary lesions in cluster headache. We conclude that the diagnostic assessment of cluster headache patients should not include specific pituitary screening. Only patients with standard brain magnetic resonance imaging findings or symptoms suggestive of a pituitary disorder require brain magnetic resonance imaging with dedicated pituitary views.

Indexed as

AdenomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAutonomic Nervous System DiseasesCluster HeadacheFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedNeuroimagingPituitary GlandPituitary NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesTrigeminal Autonomic CephalalgiasCluster headacheneuroimagingpituitary lesionpituitary MRItrigeminal autonomic cephalalgias

Identifiers

PMID33406848
PMCPMC8166405
OpenAlexW3119046437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.