Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Oct 7;17(10):e0275460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275460

Absence of posterior pituitary bright spot in adults with CNS tuberculosis: A case-control study

Smitesh G G 1,#, Pavithra Mannam 2,#, Vignesh Kumar 1,#, Tina George 1,*,#, Murugabharathy K 1,‡, Turaka Vijay Prakash 3,‡, Bijesh Yadav 4,‡, Thambu David Sudarsanam 1,#
Editor: Mao-Shui Wang5
PMCID: PMC9543765  PMID: 36206275

Abstract

Introduction

Current diagnostic methods used in Central Nervous System Tuberculosis (CNS TB) are limited by the paucibacillary nature of this form of tuberculosis. Posterior pituitary bright spot (PPBS) refers to an area of T1 hyperintensity in the posterior pituitary in MR imaging of the brain. It is found in 80–90% of healthy children and adults. In children with CNS TB, nearly half have absence of PPBS. This finding has not been described in adults. Our study looked for absence of PPBS in MR imaging and its association with CNS tuberculosis.

Objective

To study prevalence of the absence of PPBS in patients with CNS tuberculosis when compared to a control group of normal patients.

Methods

This was a retrospective case-control study of 100 patients with CNS tuberculosis and 200 controls (matched in 1:2 ratio) of patients with normal MRI brain. The MRI images were presented to a blinded radiologist in a randomised sequence to report for absence of PPBS. The data was subsequently analysed to look for association of absence of PPBS with CNS tuberculosis.

Results

Absence of PPBS (cases (47%), controls (8.5%)) was significantly associated with CNS tuberculosis in (Odds ratio-7.90, 95%CI 4.04–15.44, P-value<0.0001). The specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value and positive likelihood ratio are 91.5%, 47%, 73.4% and 5.53 respectively. Adding of absence of PPBS as an additional radiological feature in diagnosis of CNS TB increased the sensitivity from 77% to 84%.

Conclusion

Absence of PPBS is significantly associated with CNS tuberculosis and could be a relatively simple diagnostic aid in the diagnosis of CNS tuberculosis.

Introduction

CNS tuberculosis (CNS TB), the most severe form of tuberculosis, is a leading cause of neurological infections in the world, especially in TB endemic areas like south Asia [1, 2]. CNS TB has remained to be a diagnostic challenge in medicine since 17th century when it was first described by Willis [3].

Despite advances in microbiological isolation, only one in three patients diagnosed as CNS TB have definite CNS TB [4]. With advent of newer MR imaging modalities, presence of radiological features like basal exudates, meningeal enhancement, tuberculoma, infarcts and tuberculoma has helped physicians in dealing with cases where microbiological evidence is lacking [5].

In 80–90% of healthy children and adults, there is an area of T1 hyperintensity in the posterior pituitary on T1 weighted mid sagittal MRI images described as the ‘Bright Spot’ [6, 7]. This is thought to result from the T1-shortening effect of stored vasopressin in the posterior lobe of the pituitary [8]. An enlarged pituitary bright spot is seen in certain physiological conditions such as newborn, pregnancy or lactation but is usually anterior in position [9]. The loss of normal posterior pituitary bright spot (PPBS) was previously described in primary diabetes insipidus and in water intoxication [10, 11]. Andronikou et al had found that there was absence of PPBS in 55% of children with TB meningitis [12]. However, its absence in adults with CNS tuberculosis hasn’t been studied so far.

Hence, we planned a case-control study to look at increase in prevalence of the radiological feature of absence of PPBS in MR imaging and its association with CNS TB in adults.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case-control study using medical records of patients treated between January 2014 to April 2019 at a tertiary care hospital in South India. The need for informed consent was waived and this study was approved by the Institutional Research Board and Ethics Committee of the Institution (IRB Min.No.12031).

All patients with TB involving the brain (CNS TB) as diagnosed by treating physician were included during this time period as cases. Two controls were recruited for each case. From electronic medical records, patients who had MRI brain under the same unit in the same time period, and whose MRI was reported as normal were identified. Using computer generated random numbers 200 controls were selected.

The MRI images of both cases and controls were presented in a random sequence, after removing patient identifiers, to a blinded consultant radiologist to report the radiological feature of absence of PPBS.

The PPBS was identified on sagittal T1-weighted images (Fig 1). The image slice on which the PPBS was the largest was selected for measurements. PPBS was identified to be present (normal) if it measured between 1.2 and 8.5 mm in the long axis and between 0.4 and 4.4 mm in the short axis in patients who do not have any pituitary abnormality [8].

Fig 1. Posterior Pituitary Bright Spot (PPBS).

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

(A) Presence of PPBS and(B) Absence of PPBS.

Three common clinical score for CNS TB were used for grading of cases–modified MRC score, Thwaites diagnostic index score and Lancet consensus score [13–15].

Summary data was presented as mean (standard deviation, SD) or median with interquartile range for continuous variables and categorical variables as numbers and percentages. The characteristics of cases of CNS TB or control (normal MRI brain) were compared using a t-test for continuous data and categorical data was compared using Chi-square/Fisher’s exact test as appropriate. Adjusted analysis with important factors associated with cases and controls were explored using logistic regression analysis and expressed as Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Statistical significance was defined as P<0.05. The data was entered using Epidata v3.1 and analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.

Results

One-hundred cases and 200 controls were recruited as shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2. STROBE flow diagram.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Among cases fever (95%) and headache (84%) were the most common clinical symptoms while neck stiffness (69%) was the common clinical sign. (Table 1) cases (47%) compared to controls (8.5%) CSF examination was safe to perform in 93/100 cases among whom 15 /93 (16.13%) were positive for tuberculosis on mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT). Seventy percent were MRC stage 2 or 3 and 16% had a definitive diagnosis on Lancet consensus score.

Table 1. Characteristics of cases (CNS TB).

Variable  Cases (CNS TB) n = 100 
Duration of symptoms - median (IQR)  24.5 days(75) 
CSF–Gram stain  All negative 
CSF–AFB smear  All negative 
CSF–MGIT positive  15/93(16.13%) 
SCORES 
Modified MRC  (n = 100)   
•    Grade 1  30 (30%) 
•    Grade 2  47 (47%) 
•    Grade 3  23 (23%) 
Thwaites diagnostic index score (n = 93)   
    - ≤ 4  92 (98.9%) 
    - > 4  1 (1.1%) 
LANCET consensus score (n = 93)   
•    Possible TBM—n (%)  41 (44.1%) 
•    Probable TBM - n (%)  37 (39.8%) 
•    Definite TBM—n (%)  15 (16.1%) 
Open in a new tab

Compared to the controls, cases had higher mean age at presentation (37.92 ±15.62 vs. 32.48 ± 6.98), more males (60% vs. 42%), more diabetics (17% vs. 5.5%) and higher proportion with past history of tuberculosis (16% vs. 3%) (Table 2).

Table 2. Baseline characteristics of the cases and controls.

Variables  Unadjusted analysis Adjusted analysis*
Cases(CNS TB) (n = 100)  Control (n = 200)  p-value  OR (95% CI) p-value
Age in years (Mean ± SD)  37.92 ± 15.62  32.48 ± 6.98  <0.001 1.03(0.99–1.06) 0.06
Gender (males)  60 (60%)  84 (42%)  0.005 1.72(0.98–3.02) 0.06
Diabetes mellitus  17 (17%)  11 (5.5%)  0.002 1.07(0.37–3.09) 0.90
Hypertension  12 (12%)  28(14%)  0.76
Obstructive airway disease  3 (3%)  3 (1.5%)  0.66
Chronic kidney disease  0 (0%)  1 (0.5%)  -
HIV - Seropositive  5 (5%)  0 (0%)  -
Immunosuppression  1 (1%)  6 (3%)  0.50
Past history of Tuberculosis  16 (16%)  6 (3%)  <0.001 4.92(1.68–14.39) 0.004
Absence of PPBS 47(47%) 17(8.5%) <0.001 7.90(4.04–15.44) <0.001
Open in a new tab

*Adjusted for Age, gender, Diabetes Mellitus, Past history of TB and Absence of PPBS

PPBS was absent in 47% (n = 47) of the cases when compared to 8.5% (n = 17) of the controls which was statistically significant (Adjusted OR 7.90(95%CI-4.04–15.44). The specificity of “absence of PPBS” in CNS TB is 91.5% (95%CI- 86.7–95), sensitivity is 47% (95%CI- 36.9–57.2) and positive predictive value is 73.4% (95%CI- 62.6–82) and positive likelihood ratio is 5.53 (95%CI- 3.35–9.12).

The “absence of PPBS” was compared with other characteristic radiological features of CNS TB like basal exudates/meningeal enhancement (BM), arachnoiditis (A), endarteritis (E), tuberculoma (T) and hydrocephalus (H). The absence of PPBS (47%) was the second most common feature after basal exudates and meningeal enhancement (60%) and seen more commonly than hydrocephalus (32%), tuberculoma (24%), endarteritis (22%) and arachnoiditis (8%) (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Prevalence of various radiological features of CNS TB cases.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

(BM)Basal exudates or Meningeal enhancement,(A)Arachnoiditis, (E)Endarteritis,(T) Tuberculoma,(H) Hydrocephalus and absence of posterior pituitary bright spot(PPBS).

Adding of “absence of PPBS” as an additional radiological feature in diagnosis of CNS TB increased the sensitivity from 77% to 84% (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI with A/E/T/H/BM for TBM.

Any 1 of the 5 MRI features * (A/E/T/H/BM) TBM cases (N = 100) Controls (N = 200) Total Samples (N = 300) Positive Predictive Value Negative Predictive Value Sensitivity Specificity
          number                    percent
Present 77 0 77 77/77 (100) 77/100 (77)
Absent 23 200 223 200/223 (89.7) 200/200 (100)
Open in a new tab

*Any 1 of these 5 MRI features–(A)Archanoiditis, (E)Endarteritis, (T) Tuberculoma,(H) Hydrocephalus, (BM) Basal exudates/Meningeal.

Table 4. Sensitivity and specificity of MRI for TBM with addition of “Absent PPBS” to A/E/T/H/BM.

Any 1 of the 6 MRI features # (A/E/T/H/BM/Absent PPBS) TBM cases (N = 100) Controls (N = 200) Total Samples (N = 300) Positive Predictive Value Negative Predictive Value Sensitivity Specificity
          number                    percent
Present 84 0 84 84/84 (100) 84/100 (84)
Absent 16 200 216 200/216 (92.6) 200/200 (100)
Open in a new tab

# Any 1 of these 6 MRI features–(A)Archanoiditis,(E)Endarteritis, (T) Tuberculoma,(H) Hydrocephalus,(BM) Basal exudates/Meningeal, Absent PPBS.

Discussion

This is the first study, to our knowledge, assessing prevalence of the radiological feature of absence of PPBS in adults with CNS TB and the added diagnostic value of this feature. Most were MRC grade 2 or 3 at presentation and only 16.1% of them had definite microbiological evidence of TBM.

In our study, the odds of not having PPBS in TBM were 7.90. As a diagnostic test, absence of PPBS had a 91.5% specificity and positive likelihood ratio of 5.53. Adding of absence of PPBS as an additional radiological feature in diagnosis of CNS TB increased the diagnostic yield from 77% to 84%, hence highlighting its importance as an additional diagnostic aid.

The pathophysiological basis for absence of PPBS in CNS TB remains to be investigated. The inflammatory response and granulation tissue formation in CNS TB is commonly concentrated around the basal cisterns [16]. CNS TB associated endarteritis and vascular thrombosis could result in destruction of parts of pituitary gland and disruption of the hypothalamic-hypophysial pathways which lie in close anatomical proximity [12]. As a result of these, there could be a decreased storage of vasopressin in posterior pituitary thereby causing absence of PPBS.

In comparison to other radiological features, absence of PPBS is a relatively simple radiological sign which can be easily picked up by a clinician without much radiological background knowledge or training especially in areas where radiology reporting is delayed.

(Fig 1).

Limitations

Though the finding of absence of PPBS was significantly higher in our TBM cases, its robustness in aiding diagnosis will need further prospective studies with controls with non tubercular CNS infections.

Conclusion

Among adults with suspected CNS tuberculosis this is the first study to show the odds of absence of PPBS was 7.90 in favour of a diagnosis of TB. Absence of PPBS can be a relatively simple radiological aid in diagnosis of adults with suspected CNS tuberculosis.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Minimal data sheet.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (96.9KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study received assistance in funding from the Vellore CMC Foundation and Office of Research, CMC Vellore. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Zunt JR, Kassebaum NJ, Blake N, Glennie L, Wright C, Nichols E, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of meningitis, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet Neurology. 2018. Dec;17(12):1061–82. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(18)30387-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Borade PV, Haralkar SJ, Bennishirur WA, Mulje SM. Study of morbidity and mortality pattern of cases of meningitis admitted in tertiary health care centre in India. International Journal of Recent Trends in Science and Technology. 2014;10(2):213–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ruhräh J. The History of Tuberculous Meningitis. Med Library Hist J. 1904. Jul;2(3):160–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jha SK, Garg RK, Jain A, Malhotra HS, Verma R, Sharma PK. Definite (microbiologically confirmed) tuberculous meningitis: predictors and prognostic impact. Infection. 2015. Dec;43(6):639–45. doi: 10.1007/s15010-015-0756-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Garg RK, Malhotra HS, Jain A. Neuroimaging in tuberculous meningitis. Neurology India. 2016. Mar 1;64(2):219. doi: 10.4103/0028-3886.177608 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Brooks BS, el Gammal T, Allison JD, Hoffman WH. Frequency and variation of the posterior pituitary bright signal on MR images. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1989. Sep-Oct;10(5):943–8. ; PMCID: PMC8335287. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Krishna Kiran S, Anston Vernon Braggs. Posterior pituitary bright spot–a study in coastal Karnataka. International Journal of Contemporary Medicine Surgery and Radiology. 2020;5(1):A92–A94. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Côté M., Salzman K. L., Sorour M., & Couldwell W. T. (2014). Normal dimensions of the posterior pituitary bright spot on magnetic resonance imaging, Journal of Neurosurgery JNS, 120(2), 357–362. doi: 10.3171/2013.11.JNS131320 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bonneville F, Cattin F, Marsot-Dupuch K, Dormont D, Bonneville J-F, Chiras J. T1 Signal Hyperintensity in the Sellar Region: Spectrum of Findings. RadioGraphics. 2006. Jan;26(1):93–113. doi: 10.1148/rg.261055045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ozata M, Tayfun C, Kurtaran K, Yetkin İ, Beyhan Z, Çorakcı A, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of posterior pituitary for evaluation of the neurohypophyseal function in idiopathic and autosomal dominant neurohypophyseal diabetes insipidus. Eur Radiol. 1997. Aug 1;7(7):1098–102. doi: 10.1007/s003300050261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Neville KA, Pereira JK, Andrews PI, Walker JL. Transient reduction in the posterior pituitary bright signal preceding water intoxication in a malnourished child. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2004. Sep;17(9):1245–9. doi: 10.1515/jpem.2004.17.9.1245 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Andronikou S, van Toorn R, Boerhout E. MR imaging of the posterior hypophysis in children with tuberculous meningitis. Eur Radiol. 2009. Sep 1;19(9):2249–54. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1408-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Marais BJ, Heemskerk AD, Marais SS, van Crevel R, Rohlwink U, Caws M, et al. Tuberculous Meningitis International Research Consortium. Standardized Methods for Enhanced Quality and Comparability of Tuberculous Meningitis Studies. Clin Infect Dis. 2017. Feb 15;64(4):501–509. doi: 10.1093/cid/ciw757 ; PMCID: PMC5399942. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Thwaites GE, Chau TTH, Stepniewska K, Phu NH, Chuong LV, Sinh DX, et al. Diagnosis of adult tuberculous meningitis by use of clinical and laboratory features. The Lancet. 2002;360(9342):1287–92. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11318-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Marais S, Thwaites G, Schoeman JF, Török ME, Misra UK, Prasad K, et al. Tuberculous meningitis: a uniform case definition for use in clinical research. The Lancet infectious diseases. 2010;10(11):803–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Andronikou S, Smith B, Hatherhill M, Douis H, Wilmshurst J. Definitive neuroradiological diagnostic features of tuberculous meningitis in children. Pediatr Radiol. 2004. Nov;34(11):876–85. doi: 10.1007/s00247-004-1237-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mao-Shui Wang

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

4 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-00965Absence of Posterior Pituitary Bright Spot in adults with CNS Tuberculosis: A Case –Control Study.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. George,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript titled"Absence of Posterior Pituitary Bright Spot in adults with CNS Tuberculosis: A Case –Control Study" The authors compared the MRI of two large cohorts patients with CNS tuberculosis and patients controls normal. I have no specific comment. The quality of the MRI and the absence of PPBS in 47% versus 8.5% patients with CNS tuberculosis compared to the controls are convincing.

Reviewer #2: Its a very good manuscript bridging the gap in knowledge. There are few spacing issues that could be corrected. Rest looks OK. One reference no 14 should be in sentence case after first capital letter.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: SANKALP YADAV

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-00965-REVIEWED.pdf

Click here for additional data file. (549.6KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 7;17(10):e0275460. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275460.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

1 Sep 2022

To

The Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

And Reviewers

Subject- Corrections to manuscript number PONE-D-22-00965

Dear Sir,

I thank you and all the reviewers for your time and effort in reviewing our paper.

Thank you for all the positive reviews and the suggested changes. Please find my response the same below.

Response to changes suggested by the editor

1- I have herewith submitted a marked up copy with highlights made to the changes and an unmarked version of the same.

2- The manuscript has been changed to fit the PLOS ONEs style requirements.

3- The study’s minimal data set has been uploaded to the supporting information files .

4- References have been revised as recommended.

5- I have also changed the affiliation of one of the co authors Dr Vijay Prakash Turaka as he has recently changed his affiliation.

Response to reviewer 2 section 5

Thank you for your comments and the changes as suggested by you have been made.

I would again like to thank the editorial team and reviewers for all the feedback and support provided to our paper. We hope for a positive response.

Thanking you

Dr Tina George

Associate Professor

Department of Medicine

Christian Medical college Vellore

Tamil Nadu- 632004

India

Email- george.thastme@gmail.com, tinageorge@cmcvellore.ac.in

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc.docx

Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mao-Shui Wang

19 Sep 2022

Absence of Posterior Pituitary Bright Spot in adults with CNS Tuberculosis: A Case –Control Study.

PONE-D-22-00965R1

Dear Dr. George,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mao-Shui Wang

23 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-00965R1

Absence of Posterior Pituitary Bright Spot in adults with CNS Tuberculosis: A Case –Control Study.

Dear Dr. George:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mao-Shui Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data. Minimal data sheet.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (96.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-00965-REVIEWED.pdf

    Click here for additional data file. (549.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.doc.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (14.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES