ArticleEndocrine2021
Pituitary adenoma…nomen omen?
Article in Endocrine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pituitary Neuroendocrine Tumor or Pituitary Adenoma? Let's Ask the Epigenome!Endocrine pathology · 2025Pooled it
- External validation of the PANOMEN-3 classification for predicting 1-year surgical remission in pituitary adenoma.Pituitary · 2026Article
- Vitamin D in the Covid-19 era: a review with recommendations from a G.I.O.S.E.G. expert panel.Endocrine · 2021Review
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2017, the International Pituitary Pathology Club proposed to rename pituitary adenoma as pituitary neuroendocrine tumors (PitNETs) but since no consensus on this new terminology was obtained the Pituitary Society decided to host on this topic an international multidisciplinary virtual workshop, Pituitary Neoplasm Nomenclature (PANOMEN), to which several Societies participated with the designation of their representatives in the expert panel. Main conclusion of the meeting was that there was not yet a case for adopting the PitNET nomenclature and main recommendation was that the term adenoma is retained.
aimAim of this Editorial is to comment the outcome of the recently published document of the meeting.
conclusionsIdeally, only the combination of pathological, neuroradiological, and clinical data can define the degree of agressiveness/invasion of a pituitary adenoma and effectively guide treament. This may be classically obtained only with a close multisciplinary collaboration into a PTCOE. It is proposed that improved definition of "invasive" and "aggressive" neoplasms may represent the most clinically effective development in the clinico-neuroradiological-pathological denomination and classification of pituitary adenomas.
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.