SynthesisPituitary2026
The hook effect in macroprolactinomas: tumor size thresholds, prolactin patterns, and clinical consequences - a systematic review.
Synthesis in Pituitary, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe immunoassay "hook effect" may cause spuriously low prolactin (PRL) measurements in patients with macroprolactinomas, leading to misdiagnosis and inappropriate management. This systematic review aimed to determine the tumor size threshold and distribution at which the hook effect has been documented, characterize the pre-dilution PRL pattern, quantify the magnitude of PRL underestimation, and assess the clinical consequences of unrecognized hook effect.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science were searched for articles published between January 2000 and August 2025. Studies reporting individual patient data with confirmed hook effect (pre- and post-dilution PRL, tumor size, and confirmation by serial dilution) were included. Quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports. Data were synthesized using individual patient data (IPD) quantitative methods. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD420261375863) and reported per PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
resultsTwenty-three patients from 14 studies across 9 countries were included, with a median maximum tumor diameter of 48.0 mm (IQR 35.5-55.0; range 22-100 mm); the smallest confirmed hook-effect tumor diameter measured 22 mm, reported in two independent cases, and 9 of 23 cases (39.1%) occurred in tumors below the conventional giant adenoma threshold (≥ 40 mm). Median pre-dilution PRL was 100.0 ng/mL (IQR 62.0-164.5), while median post-dilution PRL was 6,460.0 ng/mL (IQR 3,608.5-16,657.5), yielding a median fold increase of 64.7× (IQR 46.8-141.5). Pre-dilution PRL ranged from 26 to 200 ng/mL in 82.6% of cases (95% CI: 62.9-93.0%), values often misattributed to stalk effect. Unrecognized hook effect led to unnecessary surgery in 55.6% of cases with documented clinical outcomes. The hook effect was documented across multiple immunoassay platforms.
conclusionsPre-dilution PRL values often overlap with the range attributed to stalk effect, and serial dilution testing should be considered for pituitary macroadenoma with PRL disproportionately low relative to tumor size, regardless of whether the tumor meets the giant adenoma threshold to prevent misdiagnosis, unnecessary surgical intervention and delayed initiation of dopamine agonist therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42213208What 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.