ArticlePloS one2026
Premature utilization of MRI in the workup of mild hyperprolactinemia.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHyperprolactinemia is a common biochemical finding detected in primary care, and guidelines suggest confirmation with a second prolactin measurement to rule out spurious elevation prior to further workup. Premature magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a costly potential consequence of improperly worked-up hyperprolactinemia. We aimed to quantify the proportion of prematurely ordered MRI for isolated hyperprolactinemia without confirmation.
methodsA retrospective chart review was performed between 2012-2021 in Alberta, Canada. We identified cases of mildly elevated serum prolactin (<100mcg/L, females ≥25.0mcg/L, males ≥21.0mcg/L) in patients >18 years who underwent MRI brain or sella following prolactin measurement. MRI was classified as "clinically appropriate" or "premature" based on clinical indication. Clinically appropriate and premature groups were compared based on patient age, sex, and scan year.
resultsWe identified 1,730 cases meeting inclusion criteria with a single prolactin measurement prior to MRI; over half (56.1%, n = 970) were categorized as "premature." Of the MRIs in the premature cohort, 39.4% (n = 382) reported at least one abnormal finding, most commonly microadenoma (n = 200). There was no statistically significant difference between premature and clinically appropriate groups for patient sex (p = 0.12) or year of MRI (p = 0.35), but patients in the premature group were significantly older (p < 0.01, mean difference 1.52 years, 95% CI:[0.45,2.49]).
conclusionsMRI for investigation of mild hyperprolactinemia is often ordered prematurely without confirmation by repeat prolactin level and generates incidental findings of uncertain clinical significance to the presenting issue. To reduce patient stress and healthcare system burden, providers should ensure proper workup of hyperprolactinemia with repeat prolactin measurement prior to ordering MRI.
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.