ArticlePituitary2025
ACRODAT and SAGIT for the assessment of disease activity in acromegaly: a multicenter study of the Veneto region in Italy.
Article in Pituitary, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Efficacy of octreotide LAR and lanreotide autogel in acromegaly assessed by SAGIT].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Observational
- SAGITPituitary · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlthough biochemical parameters have always been the basis for assessing acromegaly disease activity, other factors such as symptoms and comorbidities should also be considered. To assist clinicians in diagnosis and follow-up both the Acromegaly Disease Activity Tool (ACRODAT®) and SAGIT® (Signs and Symptoms, Associated morbidity, GH, IGF-1, Tumor) instrument were developed. This study aimed to evaluate the real-life utility of ACRODAT® and SAGIT® in assessing acromegaly disease activity across four centers of Veneto region in north-east Italy.
methods162 patients were enrolled in this multicenter study. Patients’ disease activity was classified by: clinician’s judgment categories (A: active disease; MA: mild activity; CO: controlled disease; CU: cured), ACRODAT® (green: well-controlled, yellow: partially controlled, red: active), and SAGIT® (lower scores indicate better control). The disease activity data derived from these methods were compared.
resultsThe four centers showed similar results in terms of acromegaly disease-related data. ACRODAT® categorized 48% of patients as well-controlled, 28% as partially-controlled, and 24% as active. 48% of patients had a SAGIT® score below the median number of 7. The SAGIT® trend in the population subdivided by ACRODAT® categories showed significant lower SAGIT® scores in well-controlled patients compared to partially-controlled or active patients (well-controlled: 5.6 ± 2.3, partially-controlled: 7.0 ± 3.05, active: 8.3 ± 2.4; p < 0.001). According to the clinician’s judgement, 62% of patients had controlled disease; indeed, both ACRODAT® and SAGIT® scores differed significantly among the four categories of clinician’s judgement.
conclusionsBoth ACRODAT® and SAGIT® instrument effectively assessed disease activity in acromegaly, without discrepancy with the expert clinician’s judgment. These tools provide a valuable aid in acromegaly management and could allow non-expert endocrinologists to assess disease activity accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40544422What 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.