Cited by 11Pituitary Gland Disorders and TreatmentsElectrolyte and hormonal disordersTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Triphasic response of pituitary stalk injury following TBI: a relevant yet uncommonly recognised endocrine phenomenon

Open access

Abstract

The triphasic response of pituitary stalk injury has previously been described in a minority of patients following intracranial surgery, however, this phenomenon can also occur after traumatic brain injury. We present the case of a 20-year-old male who experienced the triphasic response of pituitary stalk injury (central diabetes insipidus, syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone and central diabetes insipidus again) after striking his head on a concrete curb. His history and presentation highlight the importance of recognising the distinctive symptoms of each individual stage of pituitary stalk injury, and using the appropriate diagnostic tools and therapies to guide further management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bcr-2018-226725

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 'triphasic response' (transient DI followed by transient SIADH, sometimes progressing to persistent central DI) has been occasionally described after TBI.

    “The 'triphasic response,' in which transient DI is followed by transient SIADH with some patients then progressing to persistent central DI, has been occasionally described after TBI [15, 16].”

    From Neuroendocrine Disruptions Following Head Injury (2023) · cites this paper as [16]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Goel, A., Farhat, F., Zik, C., & Jeffery, M.
Affiliations
Inova Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Goel, Ansha
Venue
BMJ Case Reports
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-10-24
Volume
2018
Pages
bcr-2018-226725
ISSN
1757-790X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2898222878
Cited by
11
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Case Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Pituitary Gland Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Electrolyte and hormonal disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Traumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Keywords
traumatic brain injury, central diabetes insipidus, syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion, hypothalamic-pituitary dysfunction
MeSH terms
Brain Injuries, Traumatic, Deamino Arginine Vasopressin, Humans, Inappropriate ADH Syndrome, Male, Pituitary Gland, Polyuria, Thirst, Headache Disorders, Diabetes Insipidus, Neurogenic, Antidiuretic Agents, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review