Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37435184›Full record

ArticleEndocrine oncology (Bristol, England)2021

Epidemiology of craniopharyngiomas: a population-based study in Malta.

Sarah Craus, Mark Gruppetta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endocrine oncology (Bristol, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Sarah CrausDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta.
Mark GruppettaDepartment of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Mater Dei Hospital, Msida, Malta.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Despite being benign tumours, craniopharyngiomas are challenging to manage and can cause significant morbidity and mortality in both the paediatric and adult population. The aim of the study was to analyse the epidemiology of craniopharyngiomas, patient and tumour characteristics through a population-based study in Malta, enabling a better quantification of the disease burden. Methods: Thorough research was carried out to identify the number of patients who were diagnosed with craniopharyngiomas. Epidemiological data, including both standardised incidence rates (SIR) and prevalence rates, were established in a well-defined population. For incidence estimates, patients who were diagnosed between 2008 and 2019 were included. The background population formed 4.8 million patient-years at risk. Result: Twenty-nine subjects were identified and included in our study. The overall SIR was 0.3/100,000/year, with a higher SIR for males compared to females (0.4/100,000/year and 0.2/100,000/year, respectively). The highest SIR was recorded in the 10-19 year age group. The estimated prevalence rate amounted to 5.27/100,000 people, with a lower prevalence rate for childhood-onset when compared to the adult-onset category (2.03/100,000 vs 3.24/100,000 people). The median longest tumour diameter was 31.0 mm (IQR 21-41), with a statistically significant difference between childhood- and adult-onset disease; 43.0 mm (IQR 42.5-47.25) vs 27.0 mm (IQR 20.55-31.55) ( Conclusion: Through this population-based study, accurate and up-to-date prevalence and incidence rates for craniopharyngiomas are reported. These provide a clearer reflection of the true health burden of the disease.

Indexed as

craniopharyngiomaepidemiologyincidenceprevalence

Identifiers

PMID37435184
PMCPMC10265539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.