ArticleCureus2024
Diagnostic Utility of the Prolactin Decrease Rate in the Diagnosis of Mild Hyperprolactinemia.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Previous studies have yielded conflicting findings on the routine use of serial prolactin (PRL) measurement in patients with inconsistent signs or symptoms of mild hyperprolactinemia (HP). Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of serial PRL measurement and a previously undefined parameter which is the PRL decrease rate (PDR) method in the diagnosis of mild HP and prolactinoma. Materials and methods The data obtained from medical charts of patients in the sample population included serial PRL values at 0 minute (min), 30 min, and 60 min as well as macroprolactinemia (mPRL) levels. PDR was defined as the ratio of the difference between the PRL levels at 0 min and 60 min to the PRL level at 0 min. Results We obtained referral PRL (rPRL) levels from the files of 221 of 268 patients referred for HP. Of those referred, 153 (69.2%) had mild HP. Of the 165 patients in the serial PRL measurement group, HP was detected in 76 (46.1%), and stress-induced PRL elevation was found in 24 (14.5%). Of the 101 patients in the single PRL measurement group, HP was detected in 72 (69.9%; p<0.001). Moreover, a PDR score of 38.1% had 99% specificity and 26% sensitivity in HP exclusion, and a PDR score of 20.6% had 100% specificity and 30% sensitivity in prolactinoma exclusion. Conclusion In cases where clinical findings are insufficient, the serial PRL measurement method combined with the PDR for the diagnosis of prolactinoma and HP appears to be more reliable than the single measurement method.
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.