ArticlePituitary2026
Clinician decision-making in non-functioning pituitary adenomas: an Australian and New Zealand interdisciplinary survey study.
Article 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeNon-functioning pituitary adenomas (NFPA) are one of the most frequent pituitary adenoma subtypes, yet dedicated management guidelines do not exist. This study aimed to characterise real-world clinical decision-making across the spectrum of NFPA presentations and to identify areas of practice conformity versus heterogeneity within and between specialty groups.
methodsA cross-sectional, anonymous electronic survey was administered to endocrinologists, neurosurgeons, ENT surgeons, and radiation oncologists involved in pituitary adenoma care in Australia and New Zealand between January and April 2025. Three clinical scenarios were presented: an incidental microadenoma, an incidental asymptomatic macroadenoma, and a symptomatic macroadenoma with visual compromise. Concordance was defined as greater than 70% agreement on a single response within any group.
resultsA total of 145 clinicians completed the survey (99 endocrinologists, 31 surgeons, 15 radiation oncologists). Areas of conformity included broad anterior pituitary hormonal evaluation, conservative management of incidental asymptomatic macroadenomas, and active intervention for symptomatic disease with visual loss. Significant heterogeneity was identified in ophthalmological assessment, repeat imaging intervals, post-operative MRI and visual field timing, and multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting referral rates. Compared to general endocrinologists, pituitary subspecialty endocrinologists were significantly more likely to refer patients for MDT discussion and know the caseload of the surgeon to whom they were referring, and less likely to measure serum cortisol immediately post-operatively.
conclusionThis survey identifies clinically important variation in NFPA management, concentrated in domains lacking guideline recommendations. These findings highlight the need for dedicated NFPA guidelines spanning the full spectrum of NFPA presentations.
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.