Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39420933›Full record

ArticleArchives of endocrinology and metabolism2024

Usefulness of prolactin levels in predicting the etiology of hyperprolactinemia in a cohort of 770 patients.

Lucio Vilar, Clarice Freitas Vilar, Ruy Lyra, Luciano Albuquerque, Ana Carolina Thé Garrido, Patrícia Sampaio Gadelha, Erik Trovão Diniz, Marcos Almeida, Lucia Helena Cordeiro, Erico Higino de Carvalho and 9 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of endocrinology and metabolism, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Lucio VilarDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-6963
Clarice Freitas VilarCentro de Pesquisas Endócrinas de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Centro de Pesquisas Endócrinas de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3740-4290
Ruy LyraDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-4369-5137
Luciano AlbuquerqueDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4333-2553
Ana Carolina Thé GarridoDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9150-9130
Patrícia Sampaio GadelhaDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3374-1062
Erik Trovão DinizDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2147-227X
Marcos AlmeidaDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8814-701X
Lucia Helena CordeiroDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4664-9468
Erico Higino de CarvalhoDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0457-2981
Ana Teresa Bezerra de MeloDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2816-2711
Karoline Matias MedeirosDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4145-8993
Gabriel Rodrigues de Assis FerreiraDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8474-408X
José Coelho MororóDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4437-3821
Daniela Zago XimenesDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-2219-5041
Camila Ribeiro Coutinho MadrugaDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6419-1078
Rosália de Oliveira NunesDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3259-550X
Yanna Queiroz Pereira de SáDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital das Clínicas Universidade Federal de Pernambuco RecifePE Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital das Clínicas, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9160-0800
Luciana Ansaneli NavesDivisão de Endocrinologia Hospital Universitário de Brasília BrasíliaDF Brasil Divisão de Endocrinologia, Hospital Universitário de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3363-3803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Determining the etiology of hyperprolactinemia is fundamental for selecting the most appropriate treatment strategy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of prolactin levels in predicting the etiology of nonphysiological hyperprolactinemia. Subjects and methods: In this retrospective study, we reviewed medical records of patients with nonphysiological hyperprolactinemia seen at two neuroendocrine reference centers located in Recife, Brazil, from January 2000 to December 2019. Results: The study included 770 patients aged 12-73 years (65% female). The three most frequent etiologies of hyperprolactinemia were prolactinomas (n = 263; 34.2%), drug-induced hyperprolactinemia (n = 160; 20.8%), and macroprolactinemia (n = 120; 15.6%). The highest mean prolactin levels were observed in cases of prolactinomas and idiopathic hyperprolactinemia. Most patients with hyperprolactinemia due to other etiologies had prolactin levels < 100 ng/mL, but these levels were also found in 16.5% of patients with microproplactinomas and in 20% of those with idiopathic hyperprolactinemia. Likewise, prolactin levels largely overlapped among patients with microprolactinomas, macroprolactinemia, and drug-induced hyperprolactinemia. Notably, prolactin levels > 250 ng/mL enabled a clear distinction between the etiologies of macroprolactinoma and nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma. Moreover, prolactin levels > 500 ng/mL were highly suggestive of macroprolactinomas, although they were also found in very few patients (<2%) with microprolactinomas or drug-induced hyperprolactinemia. Conclusion: Despite considerable overlap in prolactin levels among the different etiologies of hyperprolactinemia, values > 250 ng/mL allowed a clear distinction between macroprolactinomas and nonfunctioning pituitary adenomas. Furthermore, prolactin levels > 500 ng/mL were almost exclusively found in patients with prolactinomas.

Indexed as

HyperprolactinemiaPituitary NeoplasmsProlactinProlactinomaAdolescentAdultAgedBiomarkersBrazilChildFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersProlactinhyperprolactinemiamacroprolactinomamicroprolactinomaProlactinprolactin-secreting pituitary adenoma

Identifiers

PMID39420933
PMCPMC11460971

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.