Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41326909›Full record

ArticlePituitary2025

Patient perceptions of pituitary incidentaloma diagnosis and follow-up: a Pituitary Society international patient survey.

Hidenori Fukuoka, Andrea Glezer, Niki Karavitaki, Ann McCormack, Mark Gurnell, Yona Greenman, Fabienne Langlois, Theodore H Schwartz, Shlomo Melmed, Maria Fleseriu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Hidenori Fukuoka *Kobe University Hospital, Kobe, Japan.
Andrea Glezer *Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Niki KaravitakiCollege of Medicine and Health, Centre for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Birmingham Health Partners, University of Birmingham, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.
Ann McCormackSt Vincent's Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Mark GurnellInstitute of Metabolic Science, University of Cambridge and NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Yona GreenmanTel Aviv-Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Fabienne LangloisCentre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Theodore H SchwartzIcahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USA.
Shlomo MelmedCedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Maria FleseriuOregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. fleseriu@ohsu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9284-6289

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDetection of pituitary incidentalomas is increasing in frequency with the use of advanced imaging techniques. As an adjunct to publication of consensus guidelines on management of pituitary incidentalomas, the Pituitary Society sought to understand patient perceptions of their diagnosis, prognosis, and follow-up.

methodsAn electronic survey developed in English and translated into Japanese and Portuguese was sent to the World Alliance of Pituitary Organizations, Australian Pituitary Foundation, Pituitary Foundation UK, Associação Brasileira Addisoniana, Instituto Vidas Raras, and Pituitary Patient Advocacy Group Japan. These organizations subsequently disseminated the survey to their patient members. Survey responses were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach to capture qualitative and quantitative data.

results275 patients responded to the survey, primarily from the United Kingdom (31%), Australia (20%), Japan (18%), and Brazil (15%). Respondents were mostly aged 30-69 years, although distribution differed significantly between the English-, Japanese-, and Portuguese-language surveys (p = 0.003). Only 44% of all respondents reported learning of the incidentaloma from a specialist in neurologic disorders or endocrinology. 60% were told they had a tumor and only 38% were told it was benign or noncancerous. 58% said they were worried about the treatment or long-term complications and 26% said they were scared about having cancer or about dying. 17% received little or no specific information about what was likely to happen to the incidentaloma over time.

conclusionResults from this survey highlight gaps in physician-patient communication about pituitary incidentalomas. Our findings underscore the need for enhanced education to improve patient perceptions of their disease.

Indexed as

Incidental FindingsPhysician-Patient RelationsPituitary NeoplasmsAdultAgedCommunicationHumansMiddle AgedGuidelinesIncidentalomaPatient educationPituitary adenoma

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.