SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2002
Interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 97 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Longitudinal Visual Outcomes and Risk of Papilledema Recurrence in Fulminant Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension.Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society · 2025Article
- Neuro-ophthalmic features of patients with spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leaks.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2023Article
- Coupling of CSF and sagittal sinus pressure in adult patients with pseudotumour cerebri.Acta neurochirurgica · 2020Article
- Surgical Outcomes and Postoperative Management in Spontaneous Cerebrospinal Fluid Rhinorrhea.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2018Article
- Cochrane systematic reviews and co-publication: dissemination of evidence on interventions for ophthalmic conditions.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Pseudotumor cerebri.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2011Review
- Response to diet and metformin in women with idiopathic intracranial hypertension with and without concurrent polycystic ovary syndrome or hyperinsulinemia.MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine · 2005Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) occurs throughout the world with an estimated incidence of one to three per 100,000 population per year. It occurs most commonly in obese young women, but the cause is unknown. It presents a significant threat to sight and is associated with severe morbidity in the form of headaches in the majority of cases. Several different treatments have been proposed, ranging from relatively conservative measures such as diuretic therapy to more invasive treatments such as optic nerve sheath fenestration or lumbo-peritoneal shunting.
objectivesThe aim of this review is to assess the evidence from controlled trials looking at the various treatments used for idiopathic intracranial hypertension with a view to producing an evidence-based treatment strategy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register - CENTRAL/CCTR (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group specialised register) on the Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2002, MEDLINE (1966 to March 2002) and EMBASE (1980 to February 2002). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials in which any intervention used to treat idiopathic intracranial hypertension had been compared to placebo or to another form of treatment in people with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the search results for trials to be included in the review. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Since no trials met our inclusion criteria, no assessment of quality or meta-analysis was undertaken. MAIN
resultsNo randomised controlled trials were found that met the inclusion criteria. REVIEWER'S
conclusionsThere is insufficient information to generate an evidence-based management strategy for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. Of the various treatments available, there is inadequate information regarding which are truly beneficial and which are potentially harmful. Properly designed and executed trials are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.