Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33921142›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

CSF Dynamics for Shunt Prognostication and Revision in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.

Afroditi Despina Lalou, Marek Czosnyka, Michal M Placek, Peter Smielewski, Eva Nabbanja, Zofia Czosnyka

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pericardial migration of ventriculoperitoneal shunt: a case report with review of the literature.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Real-Time 2D Phase-Contrast MRI to Assess Cardiac- and Respiratory-Driven CSF Movement in Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Afroditi Despina LalouBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Marek CzosnykaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2446-8006
Michal M PlacekBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7936-5202
Peter SmielewskiBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Eva NabbanjaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Zofia CzosnykaBrain Physics Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBWarsaw University of Technology · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the quantitative information derived from testing of the CSF circulation, there is still no consensus on what the best approach could be in defining criteria for shunting and predicting response to CSF diversion in normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH).

objectiveWe aimed to review the lessons learned from assessment of CSF dynamics in our center and summarize our findings to date. We have focused on reporting the objective perspective of CSF dynamics testing, without further inferences to individual patient management. DISCUSSION: No single parameter from the CSF infusion study has so far been able to serve as an unquestionable outcome predictor. Resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) is an important biological marker of CSF circulation. It should not, however, be used as a single predictor for improvement after shunting. Testing of CSF dynamics provides information on hydrodynamic properties of the cerebrospinal compartment: the system which is being modified by a shunt. Our experience of nearly 30 years of studying CSF dynamics in patients requiring shunting and/or shunt revision, combined with all the recent progress made in producing evidence on the clinical utility of CSF dynamics, has led to reconsidering the relationship between CSF circulation testing and clinical improvement.

conclusionsDespite many open questions and limitations, testing of CSF dynamics provides unique perspectives for the clinician. We have found value in understanding shunt function and potentially shunt response through shunt testing in vivo. In the absence of infusion tests, further methods that provide a clear description of the pre and post-shunting CSF circulation, and potentially cerebral blood flow, should be developed and adapted to the bed-space.

Indexed as

cerebral blood flowCSF dynamicsCSF infusion testshydrocephalusintracranial pressurenormal pressure hydrocephalus

Identifiers

PMID33921142
PMCPMC8071572
OpenAlexW3152961099

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.