ArticleThe Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism2022
Oral Contraceptive and Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use and Risk of Pituitary Adenoma: Cohort and Case-Control Analyses.
Article in The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical, hormonal and radiological features, and treatment outcomes of prolactinomas in a pediatric population.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2025Article
- Diagnosis and management of prolactin-secreting pituitary adenomas: a Pituitary Society international Consensus Statement.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
contextNo prospective epidemiologic studies have examined associations between use of oral contraceptives (OCs) or menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) and risk of pituitary adenoma in women.
objectiveOur aim was to determine the association between use of OC and MHT and risk of pituitary adenoma in two separate datasets.
methodsWe evaluated the association of OC/MHT with risk of pituitary adenoma in the Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study II by computing multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (MVHR) of pituitary adenoma by OC/MHT use using Cox proportional hazards models. Simultaneously, we carried out a matched case-control study using an institutional data repository to compute multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (MVOR) of pituitary adenoma by OC/MHT use.
resultsIn the cohort analysis, during 6 668 019 person-years, 331 participants reported a diagnosis of pituitary adenoma. Compared to never-users, neither past (MVHR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.80-1.36) nor current OC use (MVHR = 0.72; 95% CI, 0.40-1.32) was associated with risk. For MHT, compared to never-users, both past (MVHR = 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.68) and current use (MVHR = 1.80; 95% CI, 1.27-2.55) were associated with pituitary adenoma risk, as was longer duration (MVHR = 2.06; 95% CI, 1.42-2.99 comparing more than 5 years of use to never, P trend = .002). Results were similar in lagged analyses, when stratified by body mass index, and among those with recent health care use. In the case-control analysis, we included 5469 cases. Risk of pituitary adenoma was increased with ever use of MHT (MVOR = 1.57; 95% CI, 1.35-1.83) and OC (MVOR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.42) compared to never.
conclusionCompared to never use, current and past MHT use and longer duration of MHT use were positively associated with higher risk of pituitary adenoma in 2 independent data sets. OC use was not associated with risk in the prospective cohort analysis and was associated with only mildly increased risk in the case-control analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.