Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33031420›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

MRI diffusion and perfusion alterations in the mesencephalon and pons as markers of disease and symptom reversibility in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Simon Agerskov, Jonathan Arvidsson, Doerthe Ziegelitz, Kerstin Lagerstrand, Göran Starck, Isabella M Björkman-Burtscher, Carsten Wikkelsö, Mats Tullberg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Novel Insights into Emx2 and Dmrta2 Cooperation during Cortex Development and Evidence for Dmrta2 Function in the Choroid Plexus.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon AgerskovDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Hydrocephalus Research Unit, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6695-7049
Jonathan ArvidssonDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6955-6360
Doerthe ZiegelitzDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Kerstin LagerstrandDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Göran StarckDepartment of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Isabella M Björkman-BurtscherDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Carsten WikkelsöDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Hydrocephalus Research Unit, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mats TullbergDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Hydrocephalus Research Unit, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-5266
University of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCore symptomatology in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) points at dysfunction in the mesencephalon and pons indicating pathological changes in these regions, but only a few studies have addressed the issue. The aim of this study was to investigate diffusion (ADC) and perfusion patterns pre- and postoperatively in these areas in iNPH.

methodsTwenty iNPH patients and 15 healthy controls were included. Patients underwent a clinical examination and brain MRI pre- and 3-6 months postoperatively. The MRI-scan included diffusion and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion weighted sequences. Regions of interest in the mesencephalon and pons were drawn on a FLAIR sequence and co-registered to ADC maps and perfusion data.

resultsThere were no significant differences in pre or postoperative ADC compared to the control group, however postoperative ADC increased by 10% (p = 0.026) in the mesencephalon and 6% (p = 0.016) in the pons in all patients and also in the subgroup of shunt responders by 11% (p = 0.021) and 4% (p = 0.020), respectively. Preoperative relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) was similar in iNPH patients and controls. Postoperatively, rCBF increased in shunt responders by 6% (p = 0.02) in the mesencephalon and 11% (p = 0.004) in the pons. This increase correlated with the degree of clinical improvement (rs = 0.80, p = 0.031 and rs = 0.66, p = 0.021, respectively).

conclusionThe postoperative increase in ADC and the correlation between postoperative increase in rCBF and clinical improvement in the mesencephalon and pons shown in this study point at an involvement of these areas in the core pathophysiology and its reversibility in iNPH.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingAgedAged, 80 and overBrainCase-Control StudiesCerebrovascular CirculationFemaleHumansHydrocephalus, Normal PressureMaleMesencephalonMiddle AgedPonsPostoperative Period

Identifiers

PMID33031420
PMCPMC7544092
OpenAlexW3091992085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.