Table 3.

Characteristics of publication year, country, study type, cases, and gender (Female/Male) in each group for included studies.

Author	Country	Years	Type of study	Sample size (n)		Gender (F/M)		Age (mean ± standard)		NOS
				Endoscopy	Microscopy	Endoscopy	Microscopy	Endoscopy	Microscopy
Comparison of two intervention for treating non-functioning pituitary adenomas
Sheehan et al.	USA	1999	Retrospective	26	44	8/18	13/31	59.2 ± 15.1	57.8 ± 14.9	6
Messerer et al.	France	2011	Retrospective	82	82	35/47	31/51	57.0 (20–82)	56.5 (27–84)	7
Dallapiazza et al.	USA	2014	Retrospective	56	43	19/24	29/27	56.7 ± 16.9	56.2 ± 12.8	8
Karppinen et al.	Finland	2015	Retrospective	41	144	18/23	49/95	58.4 (17–83)	58.5 (16–86)	6
Zaidi et al.	USA	2016	Retrospective	55	80	20/35	30/50	55.9 ± 13.8	59.1 ± 14.6	7
Pledger et al.	USA	2015	Retrospective	47	35	24/23	18/17	52 (32.5–79.5)	54 (27–74)	8
Little et al.	USA	2019	Prospective	177	82	73/104	30/52	58.6 ± 13.3	58.1 ± 14.0	9
Comparison of two intervention for treating functioning pituitary adenomas6
Haens et al.	Belgium	2008	Retrospective	60	60	41/19	16/44	837 (10–70)	35 (10–68)	6
Choe et al.	Korea	2008	Retrospective	12	11	7/5	9/2	47 ± 12	48 ± 10	8
Cheng et al.	China	2011	Retrospective	68	59	37/31	39/20	37.82 (13–69)	33.8 (11–71)	7
Fathalla et al.	Canada	2015	Retrospective	42	23	21/21	16/7	43.2	42.1	8
Gao et al.	China	2016	Retrospective	60	45	34/26	26/19	44.6 (19–75)	48.8 (21–77)	7
Guo-dong et al.	China	2016	Retrospective	100	147	41/59	94/53	43.4 ± 14.0	40.4 ± 14.2	6
Castaño-Leon et al.	Spain	2020	Prospective	39	49	NA	NA	NA	NA	8
Comparison of two intervention for treating acromegaly
Starke et al.	USA	2013	Retrospective	72	41	40/32	21/20	49.2 ± 14.9	47.5 ± 14.2	7
Sarkar et al.	India	2014	Retrospective	66	47	36/30	21/26	37.6 ± 10.8	38.7 ± 12.2	7
Fathalla et al.	Canada	2015	Retrospective	42	23	21/21	16/7	43.2	42.1	8

NA, not available; F, female; M, male; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.