The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Endoscopic transsphenoidal pituitary surgery has become increasingly more popular for the removal of pituitary adenomas. It is also widely recognised that transsphenoidal microscopic removal of pituitary adenomas is a well-established procedure with good outcomes. Our objective was to meta-analyse the short-term results of endoscopic and microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery. We undertook a systematic review of the English literature on results of transsphenoidal surgery, both microscopic and endoscopic from 1990 to 2011. Series with less than 10 patients were excluded. Pooled data were analysed using meta-analysis techniques to obtain estimate of death, complication rates and extent of tumour removal. Complications evaluated included cerebrospinal fluid leak, meningitis, vascular complications, visual complications, diabetes insipidus, hypopituitarism and cranial nerve injury. Data were also analysed for tumour size and sex. 38 studies met the inclusion criteria yielding 24 endoscopic and 22 microscopic datasets (eight studies included both endoscopic and microscopic series). Meta-analysis of the available literature showed that the endoscopic transsphenoidal technique was associated with a higher incidence of vascular complications (p<0.0001). No difference was found between the two techniques in all other variables examined. Meta-analysis of the available literature reveals that endoscopic removal of pituitary adenoma, in the short term, does not seem to confer any advantages over the microscopic technique and the incidence of reported vascular complications was higher with endoscopic than with microscopic removal of pituitary adenomas. While we recognise the limitations of meta-analysis, our study suggests that a multicentre, randomised, comparative effectiveness study of the microscopic and endoscopic transsphenoidal techniques may be a reasonable approach towards establishing a true valuation of these techniques.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Meta‐Analysis Of Controlled Clinical Trials
Whitehead, A. (2002) · doi:10.1002/0470854200 · Cited by 827
Cited by
Diagnosis and Treatment of Pituitary Adenomas: A Review
Molitch, M. E. (2017) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.19699 · Cited by 933
The Treatment of Cushing's Disease
Pivonello, R., De Leo, M., Cozzolino, A., & Colao, A. (2015) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2013-1048 · Cited by 465
Systemic Complications of Acromegaly and the Impact of the Current Treatment Landscape: An Update
Gadelha, M. R., Kasuki, L., Lim, D. S. T., & Fleseriu, M. (2019) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2018-00115 · Cited by 363
Mazziotti, G., Frara, S., & Giustina, A. (2018) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2018-00005 · Cited by 181
Metadata
- Authors
- Ammirati, M., Wei, L., & Ciric, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012-12-15
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 843-849
- ISSN
- 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152112397
- Cited by
- 302
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp-2012-303194
- The paper
- Ammirati, M., Wei, L., & Ciric, I. (2013). Short-term outcome of endoscopic versus microscopic pituitary adenoma surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2012-303194
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.