A comparative effectiveness analysis of alternative strategies to assess hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function after microsurgical resection of pituitary tumors

Neurosurgery

Volumn 68, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1576-1584

  Marko, Nicholas F ^a,b   Weil, Robert J ^a  

^a LERNER RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Department of Neurosurgery ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Comparative effectiveness research; Evidence based medicine; Hypothalamic pituitary axis; Observational research; Outcomes research; Pituitary adenoma; Transsphenoidal surgery

Indexed keywords

CORTICOTROPIN; HYDROCORTISONE;

ARTICLE; CANCER SURGERY; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CORTICOTROPIN TEST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; HYDROCORTISONE BLOOD LEVEL; HYPOPHYSIS TUMOR; HYPOTHALAMUS HYPOPHYSIS ADRENAL SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; COSYNTROPIN; HEMATOLOGIC TESTS; HUMANS; HYDROCORTISONE; HYPOTHALAMO-HYPOPHYSEAL SYSTEM; MICROSURGERY; NEUROSURGICAL PROCEDURES; PITUITARY NEOPLASMS; PITUITARY-ADRENAL SYSTEM; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REFERENCE VALUES; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 79955879198     PISSN: 0148396X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1227/NEU.0b013e31820cd45a     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Marko N, Weil R. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2010;13(8):989-997.
2. Cooper MS, Stewart PM. Adrenal insufficiency in critical illness. J Intensive Care Med. 2007;22(6):348-362. (Pubitemid 350132181)
3. Mayenknecht J, Diederich S, Bahr V, Plockinger U, Oelkers W. Comparison of low and high dose corticotropin stimulation tests in patients with pituitary disease. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(5):1558-1562. (Pubitemid 28501021)
4. Clark PM, Neylon I, Raggatt PR, Sheppard MC, Stewart PM. Defining the normal cortisol response to the short Synacthen test: implications for the investigation of hypothalamic-pituitary disorders. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1998;49(3):287-292. (Pubitemid 28448936)
5. Dorin RI, Qualls CR, Crapo LM. Diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(3):194-204. (Pubitemid 38124602)
6. Dickstein G. High-dose and low-dose cosyntropin stimulation tests for diagnosis of adrenal insufficiency. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(4):312-313; author reply 313-314.
7. Hamrahian A, El-Mallawany N, Arafah B. Evaluation and management of pituitary-adrenal function after pituitary surgery. Endocrinologist. 1999;9:16-24. (Pubitemid 29108935)
8. Inder WJ, Hunt PJ. Glucocorticoid replacement in pituitary surgery: guidelines for perioperative assessment and management. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87(6):2745-2750. (Pubitemid 34655340)
9. Thaler LM, Blevins LS Jr. The low dose (1-microg) adrenocorticotropin stimulation test in the evaluation of patients with suspected central adrenal insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(8):2726-2729. (Pubitemid 28493767)
10. Mukherjee JJ, de Castro JJ, Kaltsas G, et al. A comparison of the insulin tolerance/ glucagon test with the short ACTH stimulation test in the assessment of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis in the early post-operative period after hypophysectomy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1997;47(1):51-60. (Pubitemid 27313988)
11. Auchus RJ, Shewbridge RK, Shepherd MD. Which patients benefit from provocative adrenal testing after transsphenoidal pituitary surgery? Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1997;46(1):21-27. (Pubitemid 27072842)
12. Courtney CH, McAllister AS, Bell PM, et al. Low- and standard-dose corticotropin and insulin hypoglycemia testing in the assessment of hypothalamic-pituitary- adrenal function after pituitary surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89(4):1712-1717. (Pubitemid 38507924)
13. Courtney CH, McAllister AS, McCance DR, et al. Comparison of one week 0900 h serum cortisol, low and standard dose synacthen tests with a 4 to 6 week insulin hypoglycaemia test after pituitary surgery in assessing HPA axis. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2000;53(4):431-436.
14. Dokmetas HS, Colak R, Kelestimur F, Selcuklu A, Unluhizarci K, Bayram F. A comparison between the 1-microg adrenocorticotropin (ACTH) test, the short ACTH (250 microg) test, and the insulin tolerance test in the assessment of hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis immediately after pituitary surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(10):3713-3719.
15. Watts NB, Tindall GT. Rapid assessment of corticotropin reserve after pituitary surgery. JAMA. 1988;259(5):708-711. (Pubitemid 18039567)
16. Marko NF, Gonugunta VA, Hamrahian AH, Usmani A, Mayberg MR, Weil RJ. Use of morning serum cortisol level after transsphenoidal resection of pituitary adenoma to predict the need for long-term glucocorticoid supplementation. J Neurosurg. 2009;111(3):540-544.
17. Garcia-Luna PP, Leal-Cerro A, Rocha JL, Trujillo F, Garcia-Pesquera F, Astorga R. Evaluation of the pituitary-adrenal axis before, during and after pituitary adenomectomy: is perioperative glucocorticoid therapy necessary? Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1990;122(1):83-88. (Pubitemid 20055287)
18. Hout WM, Arafah BM, Salazar R, Selman W. Evaluation of the hypothalamicpituitary- adrenal axis immediately after pituitary adenomectomy: is perioperative steroid therapy necessary? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1988;66(6):1208-1212.
19. Marko N, Hamrahian A, Weil R. Immediate postoperative cortisol levels accurately predict postoperative hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function after transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors. Pituitary. 2010;13(3):249-255.
20. Sing T, Sander O, Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T. ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics. 2005;21(20):3940-3941. (Pubitemid 41535515)
21. Barker FG II, Klibanski A, Swearingen B. Transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors in the United States, 1996-2000: mortality, morbidity, and the effects of hospital and surgeon volume. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(10):4709-4719. (Pubitemid 37357516)
22. Wilensky GR. Cost-effectiveness information: yes, it's important, but keep it separate, please! Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(12):967-968. (Pubitemid 351860830)
23. Marko N, Weil R. The role of observational investigations in comparative effectiveness research. Value Health. 2010;13(8):989-997.
24. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL.Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
25. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-926. (Pubitemid 351632017)
26. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312(7040):1215-1218. (Pubitemid 26136714)
27. Norris SL, Atkins D. Challenges in using nonrandomized studies in systematic reviews of treatment interventions. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12)(pt 2):1112-1119. (Pubitemid 40847714)
28. Kodish E, Lantos JD, Siegler M. The ethics of randomization. CA Cancer J Clin. 1991;41(3):180-186.
29. Retsas S. Treatment at random: the ultimate science or the betrayal of Hippocrates? J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(24):5005-5008. (Pubitemid 46638625)
30. Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290(12):1624-1632. (Pubitemid 37430387)
31. Hartling L, McAlister FA, Rowe BH, Ezekowitz J, Friesen C, Klassen TP. Challenges in systematic reviews of therapeutic devices and procedures. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(12)(pt 2):1100-1111. (Pubitemid 40847713)
32. Meakins JL. Innovation in surgery: the rules of evidence. Am J Surg. 2002;183(4):399-405. (Pubitemid 34442504)
33. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Should we be performing more randomized controlled trials evaluating surgical operations? Surgery. 1995;118(3):459-467.
34. Solomon MJ, McLeod RS. Surgery and the randomised controlled trial: past, present and future. Med J Aust. 1998;169(7):380-383. (Pubitemid 28486787)
35. Chou R, Aronson N, Atkins D, et al. Assessing harms when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):502-512.
36. Gliklich R, Dreyer N, eds. Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User's Guide. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC0001-1. Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center (Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome) under contract No. HHSA29020050035ITO1. http:// www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/PatOutcomes.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2010.
37. Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, Version 1.0. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/repFiles/2007-10DraftMethodsGuide. pdf. Accessed May 1, 2010.
38. Slutsky J, Atkins D, Chang S, Collins Sharp BA. Comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the effective health-care program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(5):481-483.
39. AHRQ. Evidence report series by number. 2009. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ epc/ epcseries.htm. Accessed May 1, 2010.
40. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research [report brief]. 2009. http://iom.edu/∼/media/Files/ Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/ CER%20report%20brief%2008- 13-09.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2010.
41. National Academies Press. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. 2009. http://www.nap.edu. Accessed May 1, 2010.
42. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Public Law 111-5 2009.
43. The Comparative Effectiveness Research Act of 2009. H.R. 2502 (2009).
44. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Act of 2009. S. 1213 (2009).
45. Iglehart JK. Prioritizing comparative-effectiveness research: IOM recommendations. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(4):325-328.
46. Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006. The Cochrane Library, Issue 4.
47. SalasM, Hofman A, Stricker BH. Confounding by indication: an example of variation in the use of epidemiologic terminology. Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149(11):981-983. (Pubitemid 29246861)
48. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: The Guidelines Manual. London, UK: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2009.
49. Sanderson S, Tatt ID, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666-676. (Pubitemid 47244573)
50. Tooth L, Ware R, Bain C, Purdie DM, Dobson A. Quality of reporting of observational longitudinal research. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(3):280-288. (Pubitemid 40223516)
51. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296.
52. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ. 2004;328(7430):39-41. (Pubitemid 38067746)
53. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:28.