The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Clinical article
Abstract
Object: Surgery on the pituitary gland is increasingly being performed through an endoscopic approach. However, there is little published data on its safety and relative advantages over traditional microscope-based approaches. Published reports are limited by small sample size and nonrandomized study design. A meta-analysis allows for a description of the impact of endoscopic surgery on short-term outcomes. Methods: The authors performed retrospective review of data from their institution as well as a systematic review of the literature. The pooled data were analyzed for descriptive statistics on short-term outcomes. Results: Nine studies (821 patients) met inclusion criteria. Overall, the pooled rate of gross tumor removal was 78% (95% CI 67–89%). Hormone resolution was achieved in 81% (95% CI 71–91%) of adrenocorticotropic hormone secreting tumors, 84% (95% CI 76–92%) of growth hormone secreting tumors, and 82% (95% CI 70–94%) of prolactin secreting tumors. The pooled complication rates were 2% (95% CI 0–4%) for CSF leak and 1% (95% CI 0–2%) for permanent diabetes insipidus. There were 2 deaths reported in the literature that were both related to vascular injury, giving an overall mortality rate of 0.24%. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis support the safety and short-term efficacy of endoscopic pituitary surgery. Future studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine tumor control.
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 Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Cited by
Berker, M., Hazer, D. B., Yücel, T., Gürlek, A., Cila, A., Aldur, M., & Önerci, M. (2012) · Pituitary · doi:10.1007/s11102-011-0368-2 · Cited by 282
Cushing’s syndrome: from physiological principles to diagnosis and clinical care
Raff, H., & Carroll, T. (2015) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2014.282871 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Tabaee, A., Anand, V. K., Barrón, Y., Hiltzik, D. H., Brown, S. M., Kacker, A., Mazumdar, M., & Schwartz, T. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 545-554
- ISSN
- 0022-3085 (ISSN-L)
- 1933-0693
- OpenAlex
- W1520726092
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Clinical article. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3171/2007.12.17635
- The paper
- Tabaee, A., Anand, V. K., Barrón, Y., Hiltzik, D. H., Brown, S. M., Kacker, A., Mazumdar, M., & Schwartz, T. H. (2009). Endoscopic pituitary surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis: Clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.3171/2007.12.17635
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.