SynthesisPituitary2026
Pituitary adenoma and intracerebral aneurysms: case series, systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Pituitary, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIntracranial aneurysms (IAs) and Pituitary Adenoma (PA) coexistence has been reported for decades, yet available evidence remains fragmented. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA 2020 guidelines to assess clinical features of patients with both conditions and quantify the prevalence of IAs in PA patients.
methodsPubMed and Embase were searched up to December 15, 2025. Studies reporting coexistence of IAs and PAs were included. Individual patient-level data (Group 1) and aggregate prevalence data (Group 2) were analyzed separately. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools. All analyses were performed using metaprop function from the meta package in R software.
resultsSeventy-one studies met inclusion criteria. Most studies have a low RoB. In Group 1 (74 patients), PAs were predominantly macroadenomas (91.9%), most frequently non-functioning (40.5%). IAs were mainly in the cavernous segment of the internal carotid artery (33%). IA diagnosis occurred significantly later than PA diagnosis (p < 0.01). In Group 2 (5264 patients), the pooled prevalence of IAs among PAs was 4% (95% CI 2-4%; I² = 92.1%, τ² = 1.1050, p < 0.0001). Sex-stratified prevalence was 8% (95% CI: 6%-9%) in females and 6% (95% CI: 4%-7%) in males. IAs sex-specific prevalence was significantly higher in both male and female PA patients as compared to the general population (p < 0.01).
conclusionPatients with PAs show a higher IAs prevalence compared with the general population, likely reflecting combined hemodynamic, anatomical, and endocrine influences.
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.