ArticlePloS one2017
Non-invasive assessment of pulsatile intracranial pressure with phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta neurochirurgica · 2021Pooled it
- Dynamic compliance of the CSF system in iNPH (Part I) - in vitro investigation of the impact of spinal canal stenoses.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- The impact of human brain geometry on the transport of an intrathecal tracer.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Arterial-related craniospinal physiological compliance assessed by phase-contrast MRI and lumbar infusion test.Brain communications · 2026Article
- A mechanistic approach for intracranial pressure (ICP) level estimation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Quantifying CSF Dynamics disruption in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus using phase lag between transmantle pressure and volumetric flow rate.Brain multiphysics · 2024Article
- Modeling CSF circulation and the glymphatic system during infusion using subject specific intracranial pressures and brain geometries.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2024Article
- Human brain solute transport quantified by glymphatic MRI-informed biophysics during sleep and sleep deprivation.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence velocimetry reveals in vivo flow rates, pressure gradients, and shear stresses in murine perivascular flows.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Non-Invasive Intracranial Pressure Monitoring.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Human intracranial pulsatility during the cardiac cycle: a computational modelling framework.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2022Article
- Noninvasive Estimation of Pulsatile and Static Intracranial Pressure by Optical Coherence Tomography.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Machine Learning-Based Continuous Intracranial Pressure Prediction for Traumatic Injury Patients.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Systematic volumetric analysis predicts response to CSF drainage and outcome to shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.European radiology · 2021Article
- Ventriculomegaly in children: nocturnal ICP dynamics identify pressure-compensated but active paediatric hydrocephalus.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021Article
- Direction and magnitude of cerebrospinal fluid flow vary substantially across central nervous system diseases.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2021Article
- Variations in the cerebrospinal fluid dynamics of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis).Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2021Article
- Measuring intracranial pressure by invasive, less invasive or non-invasive means: limitations and avenues for improvement.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2020Review
- Intracranial pressure elevation alters CSF clearance pathways.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2020Article
- Longitudinal analysis of cerebral aqueduct flow measures: multiple sclerosis flow changes driven by brain atrophy.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Invasive monitoring of pulsatile intracranial pressure can accurately predict shunt response in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, but may potentially cause complications such as bleeding and infection. We tested how a proposed surrogate parameter for pulsatile intracranial pressure, the phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging derived pulse pressure gradient, compared with its invasive counterpart. In 22 patients with suspected idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, preceding invasive intracranial pressure monitoring, and any surgical shunt procedure, we calculated the pulse pressure gradient from phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging derived cerebrospinal fluid flow velocities obtained at the upper cervical spinal canal using a simplified Navier-Stokes equation. Repeated measurements of the pulse pressure gradient were also undertaken in four healthy controls. Of 17 shunted patients, 16 responded, indicating high proportion of "true" normal pressure hydrocephalus in the patient cohort. However, there was no correlation between the magnetic resonance imaging derived pulse pressure gradient and pulsatile intracranial pressure (R = -.18, P = .43). Pulse pressure gradients were also similar in patients and healthy controls (P = .26), and did not differ between individuals with pulsatile intracranial pressure above or below established thresholds for shunt treatment (P = .97). Assessment of pulse pressure gradient at level C2 was therefore not found feasible to replace invasive monitoring of pulsatile intracranial pressure in selection of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus for surgical shunting. Unlike invasive, overnight monitoring, the pulse pressure gradient from magnetic resonance imaging comprises short-term pressure fluctuations only. Moreover, complexity of cervical cerebrospinal fluid flow and -pulsatility at the upper cervical spinal canal may render the pulse pressure gradient a poor surrogate marker for intracranial pressure pulsations.
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.