Search

Spontaneous resolution of nonfunctioning pituitary adenoma after hemorrhagic apoplexy is a rare clinical entity of unknown etiology and is defined as disappearance of a tumor without any specific treatment. Here we present a 54-year-old male patient who presented with acute onset of severe headache, vomiting, photophobia, and sonophobia. He was referred to brain computed tomography, which showed a 16x12x16 mm tumor mass located in the sellar region with signs of hemorrhage. Endocrinologic evaluation was consistent with under-function of pituitary gonadotropic cells. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) performed ten days later was consistent with hemorrhagic apoplexy of the pituitary adenoma. The patient’s symptoms resolved after conservative treatment with dexamethasone, but he was scheduled for elective pituitary surgery. Preoperative MRI was performed one month after the first one and disclosed normal pituitary gland without any signs of adenoma. Our case is remarkable due to the fact that spontaneous remission of pituitary adenoma occurred within the first month, which is the shortest interval reported to date. Our case highlights the importance of conservative therapy as the first-line treatment for pituitary apoplexy in the absence of neurological impairment, since spontaneous remission may occur in a short time interval., Spontana regresija nefunkcionalnog adenoma hipofize nakon hemoragijske apopleksije je iznimno rijedak klinički entitet nepoznate etiologije, a definiran je kao nestanak tumora bez primijenjenog liječenja. Naš 54-godišnji bolesnik prezentirao se izrazito jakom, naglo nastalom glavoboljom, povraćanjem, fotofobijom i sonofobijom. Bolesnik je upućen na hitnu kompjutoriziranu tomografiju mozga koja je pokazala selarnu tumorsku tvorbu 16x12x16 mm sa zonom krvarenja. Endokrinološki nalazi upućivali su na disfunkciju gonadotropnih stanica hipofize. Nakon deset dana učinjena je magnetska rezonanca (MR) kojom je potvrđena hemoragijska apopleksija adenoma hipofize. Simptomi su se povukli nakon primijenjene konzervativne terapije deksametazonom, ali je bolesnik zakazan za kiruršku resekciju adenoma. Prijeoperacijski MR učinjen mjesec dana nakon prvoga pokazao je normalnu hipofizu bez znakova adenoma. Posebnost našega slučaja je vrijeme manje od mjesec dana u kojem se dogodila spontana remisija, što je najkraće dosad opisano vrijeme u svjetskoj literaturi. Naš slučaj naglašava važnost konzervativne terapije kao prve terapijske linije kod apopleksije adenoma hipofize u bolesnika bez neuroloških deficita i to upravo zbog činjenice što je spontana remisija moguća u kratkom vremenskom intervalu nakon pojave samih simptoma.

Outcome reporting bias is one of the fundamental forms of publication bias. It implies publishing only outcomes that have positive results. The aim of this observational study was to explore primary outcome discrepancies between registry of clinical trials and their corresponding publications, since these can indicate outcome reporting bias in child mental health. Data were extracted from completed interventional clinical trials from ClinicalTrial.gov registry and its Archive site. Trials were registered under “Behaviours and Mental Disorders” category, and conducted on underage participants (0–17 years). Their primary outcomes were compared to those published in publication which had a corresponding NCT number stated in the text. Sixteen percent of trials did not have the minimum information on primary outcome stated in the registry—neither the measure used nor the measurement time points ; 38.9% of trials had the minimum information stated to describe primary outcome, while only 3.3% of trials had all the necessary elements stated in the registry. Most of the publication in our sample had positive results (66.4%). Half of the trials registered before completion had non- matching primary outcomes in the registry and publication ; 85.4% of trials with non-matching outcomes indicated possible outcome reporting bias for some of the primary outcome. Middle-sized trials and industry-funded trials were related with higher quality of primary outcome registration. Industry funding was related with positive findings in publication. Non-industry funding proved to be the only significant predictor of discrepancy between registered and published primary outcomes, and possible outcome reporting bias. Journal impact factor was not related with any of the outcome measures. The main limitation of the study is that it primarily offers an insight into discrepancy of registered and published outcomes. The methodology does not imply an access to results of unpublished outcomes — therefore, it was not possible to determine the presence of the bias with sufficient certainty in large number of trials. Further research should be done with improved methodology and additional data.