SynthesisPituitary2023
Measuring pituitary tumor volume: a comparison of the simplified and non-simplified ellipsoid equation with the 3D planimetric volume assessment.
Synthesis in Pituitary, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biomimetic nano-in-gel vaccine platform with spatiotemporal co-delivery capacity for DC maturation against immunosuppressive tumors.International journal of pharmaceutics: X · 2026Article
- Utilities of 3D technology for planning endoscopic endonasal approaches. Case series of anatomical-imaging review.Journal of surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Heterogeneity of Tumor Glucose Metabolism in Schwannomas Between Trunk and Extremities: An Imaging Study.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe ellipsoid equation came in an attempt to facilitate the estimation of tumor volume, by measuring the height, width, and anteroposterior length of the lesion. The estimated tumor volume can sometimes be different between methods, thus, it is of extreme interest to evaluate if the methods are significantly different, as well as to discuss the main limitations of each one.
methodsThis is an observational, analytical, cross-sectional study. A systematic review of the literature was also performed in order to discuss the results observed in the present study.
resultsA total of 82 patients (43 males and 39 females) ranging in age from 15 to 78 years (mean 47.95 ± 14.76) were included in the study. Seven patients were classified as Knosp grade 0 (8.5%), 36 Knosp grade 1 (44%), 14 Knosp grade 2 (17%), 20 Knosp grade 3 (24.4%), 5 Knosp grade 4 (6.1%). The tumor volume estimated by 3D planimetric assessment, non-simplified ellipsoid equation, and simplified ellipsoid formula averaged 10.68 cm³, 10.36 cm³, and 9.9 cm³ respectively.
conclusionA simplified form of the ellipsoid equation increases the divergence between the measurement obtained in planimetry, and should be discouraged, in view of the new automated methods of performing quick calculations using periodic digits. The non-simplified form underestimated the tumor volume by 2.9% on average but did so regularly. In clinical practice, measurement should be accompanied by an evaluation of tumor morphology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37115292What 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.