ArticlePituitary2025
Enhancing diagnostic tools for vasopressin deficiency: insights from a single-center cohort study.
Article in Pituitary, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextA recent multicenter trial confirmed that hypertonic saline-stimulated copeptin is superior to the arginine stimulation test (AST) for diagnosing vasopressin deficiency (AVP-D). The latter, though less accurate, is cheaper, better tolerated, and easier to perform. We aimed to improve AST diagnostic accuracy by incorporating additional parameters alongside copeptin.
methodsWe retrospectively analysed ASTs from patients evaluated for suspected AVP-D. Final diagnosis was defined based on clinical, biochemical, radiological and follow-up data. We evaluated the test diagnostic accuracy based on either literature reported or ROC-based thresholds of several variables even in combination.
resultsNineteen patients were included and 8 were diagnosed with AVP-D. Copeptin response to AST was flat in AVP-D compared to primary polydipsia (PP) but showed limited discriminatory power with the maximal accuracy for copeptin-based parameters reaching 73.7%. AVP-D patients had lower urinary osmolarity (UOsm) and higher plasma osmolarity and serum sodium (Na) at AST end. Na at AST end was the best predictor of AVP-D (≥ 141 mmol/L: sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 100%, accuracy 94.7%, AUC 0.989). A multistep approach initially assessing Na at AST end and, in dubious cases (140-142 mmol/l), also either copeptin peak (≤ 4.1 pmol/L), UOsm (≤ 428 mOsm/kg), or absent posterior pituitary hyperintense signal achieved 100% diagnostic accuracy. Logistic regression using Na at AST end values combined with any of these aforementioned additional variables also reached complete discrimination between AVP-D and PP. DISCUSSION: Combining multiple parameters after AST improved diagnostic accuracy, even without measuring copeptin. Despite the study's retrospective design, small sample, and absence of hypertonic saline testing, findings support the potential utility of a multivariable approach to AST interpretation.
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.