ReviewJournal of the Endocrine Society2026
Medical therapy in mild autonomous cortisol secretion.
Review in Journal of the Endocrine Society, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mild autonomous cortisol secretion (MACS) has an increasing prevalence with age and is associated with cardiometabolic comorbidity and increased mortality. Current guidelines recommend the majority of patients with MACS be managed conservatively, with select people referred for laparoscopic adrenalectomy. There are currently no licensed medications for MACS. Objective: We aimed to systematically review the literature to map out the current available evidence on the use of medical therapy in the treatment of MACS and to assess the research gap. Additionally, we sought to establish the outcome measurements used, to inform the design of future prospective clinical trials. Design: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from conception as well as clinical trial registries to detect all original studies of medical treatments in MACS. Titles and abstracts were screened and full articles reviewed. Results: A total of 5369 results were found from the search strategy. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 8 were conference abstracts and 5 full-text studies were included in the final analysis. This included 2 studies of metyrapone and 3 studies that used mifepristone. Common outcome measures included blood pressure, glucose measurements, weight, and side effect data. Conclusion: There is a considerable knowledge gap with regard to the medical management of MACS. Current available evidence consists of a handful of small, heterogeneous studies with a suggestion of a potential benefit in initiating mifepristone or metyrapone in this cohort. Our results highlight the urgent need for larger, prospective studies. To support this, we have provided suggestions for outcome measures.
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.