ArticleGland surgery2020
Comparison of outcomes between endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for the treatment of pituitary adenoma: a meta-analysis.
Article in Gland surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes of endoscopic and microscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery: evidence from a systematic review, meta-analysis, and institutional experience.Neurosurgical review · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and efficacy of endoscopic vs. microscopic approaches in pituitary adenoma surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurosurgical review · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of endoscopic and endoscope-assisted microscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenoma resection: a prospective randomized study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Trial
- Cost outcomes of pituitary adenoma resection: The use of a hybrid microscopic/endoscopic surgery.Surgical neurology international · 2025Article
- Clinical study on the selection of endoscopes and microscopes for transsphenoidal surgery of non-aggressive pituitary macroadenoma and microadenoma and the influencing factors of hyposmia after endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPituitary tumors are among the most common intracranial tumors. Surgical resection is the most effective treatment for patients with pituitary tumors. Microscopic transsphenoidal surgery has become the first-choice surgical approach to treating this malignancy, although it has certain limitations. Neuroendoscopy has also been widely used for pituitary tumor surgery in recent years. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two surgical options for the treatment of pituitary tumors.
methodsWe conducted a literature search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Center Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science database, Google Scholar, and Baidu Scholar. Relevant articles published up to September 25, 2020 were retrieved and then meta-analyzed using RevMan software 5.1.
resultsA total of 29 case-control studies involving 7,774 patients were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in gross tumor removal (GTR) (RR =1.11, 95% CI: 0.97-1.26, P=0.12) or hormone excess secretion (HES) remission (RR =1.08, 95% CI: 0.97-1.21, P=0.16) between the two groups. Endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery was associated with a lower incidence of diabetes insipidus (DI) than was microscopic transsphenoidal surgery (RR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.60-0.97, P=0.03).
conclusionsEndoscopic transsphenoidal surgery does not significantly improve GTR or HES remission, but it can reduce the incidence of DI without increasing the rates of other complications.
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.