Table 2.
Studies Assessing Clinical Presentations with control group
| Table B (studies with control group) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Clinical setting, Years | No. of Patients | Age, Mean (Range) | Gender (M,F) | Control group | Ref. |
| Plouin et al., 1981 | Hypertension service, saint-Joseph hospital, Paris, France, from 1977 | 2585 hypertensive patients (11 of them were found to have pheochromocytoma) | 33–60 | 1443,1142 | All of the 2585 patients are considered control group as the proportion of pheochromocytoma is 0.4 % | [12] |
| Peter P. Stein et al. 1991 | Yale university school of medicine, USA. | 30 episodes (29 patients), 28 controls |
37 (18–65) 43 (20–65) |
13,16 16,12 |
Yesa | [16] |
| Henry R. Black et al. 1984 | 11 new England hospitals, USA, 1962–1980 | 53 patients (60 first. 5 excluded because of finding based on predisposition genetic factor. 1 excluded because of being asymptomatic and tumor found at autopsy) 25 controls | 41 (13–85) 39.3 (19–85) |
27, 26 14,11 |
Yesb | [17] |
| P.F. Plouin et al., 1988 | Hypertension departments of 2 hospitals, Paris, France, 1976–1985 | 39 patients 21 controls |
– | Yes (21 patients with essential hypertension) | [20] | |
| Václavík J et al. 2007 | Sternberk Hospital, Sternberk, Czech Republic. | 14 patients214 controls | 58 (37–74) 57 (16–84) |
6,8 86,128 |
Yesc | [23] |
| Run Yu et al. 2007 | An academic hospital, Los Angeles, USA 1997–2007 | 40 patients 9 controls |
54(10–78) 57 (36–82) |
16,24 2,7 |
Yes (patients with over-diagnosed pheochromocytoma) | [46] |
| Yu R et al. 2010 | Division of Endocrinology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2000–2008 | 13 patients 24 controls |
53 (23–86) 59 (28–82) |
6,7 10,14 |
Yes (24 patients with highly elevated biochemical tests but pheochromocytoma was ruled out) | [47] |
a 28 (a pheochromocytoma was considered but excluded if any 1 of several conditions were met: 1) repeatedly normal urine collections for catecholamine metabolites (VMA or MN) and urine free catecholamines (UFC) and no diagnosis of pheochromocytoma after 2 years of follow up; 2) negative imaging studies (CT, MRI or MIBG) and no diagnosis of pheochromocytoma after 2 years of follow up; 3) resolution of the clinical symptoms and/or alternate diagnosis, explaining the symptoms, established.)
b Patients highly suspected to have pheochromocytoma in whom the diagnosis was ruled out by negative arteriograms and no evidence of disease after at least 18 months follow-up
c 213 patients screened for resistant or markedly accelerated hypertension, paroxysmal hypertension, and ‘flushes’ and, in a small proportion, for adrenal incidentaloma or genetic predisposition to pheochromocytoma. in who diagnose was not confirmed by long-term follow-up or use of imaging techniques