4.7 Review

Hypopituitarism in Traumatic Brain Injury-A Critical Note

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 7, 页码 1480-1497

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm4071480

关键词

head trauma; hypopituitarism; diagnostic criteria

资金

  1. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation
  2. Research Council of the Capital Region of Denmark
  3. Lundbeck Foundation
  4. Novo Nordisk
  5. A.P. Moller Foundation for the Advancement of Medical Science
  6. Arvid Nilsson's Foundation
  7. Christenson-Ceson's Foundation
  8. Axel-Muusfeldt's Foundation
  9. Else and Mogens Wedell-Wedellsborg's Foundation
  10. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF15OC0014622] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While hypopituitarism after traumatic brain injury (TBI) was previously considered rare, it is now thought to be a major cause of treatable morbidity among TBI survivors. Consequently, recommendations for assessment of pituitary function and replacement in TBI were recently introduced. Given the high incidence of TBI with more than 100 pr. 100,000 inhabitants, TBI would be by far the most common cause of hypopituitarism if the recently reported prevalence rates hold true. The disproportion between this proposed incidence and the occasional cases of post-TBI hypopituitarism in clinical practice justifies reflection as to whether hypopituitarism has been unrecognized in TBI patients or whether diagnostic testing designed for high risk populations such as patients with obvious pituitary pathology has overestimated the true risk and thereby the disease burden of hypopituitarism in TBI. The findings on mainly isolated deficiencies in TBI patients, and particularly isolated growth hormone (GH) deficiency, raise the question of the potential impact of methodological confounding, determined by variable test-retest reproducibility, appropriateness of cut-off values, importance of BMI stratified cut-offs, assay heterogeneity, pre-test probability of hypopituitarism and lack of proper individual laboratory controls as reference population. In this review, current recommendations are discussed in light of recent available evidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据