ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
A new and useful tool for differentiating prolactinomas from non-functioning pituitary adenomas: a pilot study of the cabergoline disconnection test.
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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.
- Disentangling secretory ambiguity and the limitations of classical thresholds in defining prolactinomas.Pituitary · 2026Article
- Cabergoline Therapy and Tumor Growth Rate in Pituitary Microadenomas: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveClinical, imaging, and laboratory differentiation between non-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPAs) and prolactinomas can be challenging in clinical practice because of their similar presentation and eventual overlap in prolactin levels. The degree of prolactin suppression after a single low-dose cabergoline administration may be useful as a test to discriminate between these two clinical conditions and to determine the choice of therapy (dopamine agonist versus neurosurgery).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 19 patients with macroadenomas (11 NFPAs and 8 prolactinomas) whose prolactin levels were evaluated at baseline and 48 h after receiving a single dose of 0.25mg cabergoline. A receiver operating characteristic curve was generated for sensitivity and specificity analyses.
resultsThe baseline median prolactin level was 58ng/mL (range, 32.5-151.2ng/mL) in the NFPA Group, which was significantly lower than that observed in the Prolactinoma Group (733.7 [range, 180-6941ng/mL]) (p<0.001). After the cabergoline disconnection test, the NFPA Group exhibited a lower absolute prolactin level (p<0.001) and a higher percentage of prolactin reduction (p=0.004). The post-test prolactin level ≥26.3ng/mL had 100% sensitivity and specificity in identifying prolactinomas. When using the percentage of reduction, post-test prolactin reduction ≥85.6% had 54.5% sensitivity and 100% specificity to differentiate NFPAs from prolactinomas.
conclusionA single low-dose oral cabergoline is a fast and inexpensive test for use in daily clinical practice to discriminate between hyperprolactinemia due to NFPAs and prolactinomas, with high sensitivity and specificity.
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.