Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16034899›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

Interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

C Lueck, G McIlwaine

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Interventions for idiopathic intracranial hypertension.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Management of recurrent cerebrospinal fluid leak, current practices and open challenges. A systematic literature review.Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Emergency department utilization among individuals with idiopathic intracranial hypertension.International journal of health care quality assurance · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. [Treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension by endovascular improvement of venous drainage of the brain].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2015
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. CSF diversion in refractory idiopathic intracranial hypertension: single-centre experience and review of efficacy.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

C LueckDepartment of Neurology, Canberra Hospital, P.O. Box 11, Woden, Australia, 2606. Christian.Lueck@act.gov.au
G McIlwaine

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdiopathic intracranial hypertension 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 most 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, stenting of cerebral venous sinuses, or lumbo-peritoneal shunting.

objectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the effects of various forms of treatment for idiopathic intracranial hypertension with a view to producing an evidence-based treatment strategy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register, on The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to January 2005). 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: Both authors 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. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is insufficient information to generate an evidence-based management strategy for idiopathic intracranial hypertension. There is inadequate information regarding which treatments are truly beneficial and which are potentially harmful. Properly designed and executed trials are needed.

Indexed as

HumansIntracranial Hypertension

Identifiers

PMID16034899

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.