Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34235589›Full record

SynthesisActa neurochirurgica2021

Clinical predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Santhosh G Thavarajasingam, Mahmoud El-Khatib, Mark Rea, Salvatore Russo, Johannes Lemcke, Lana Al-Nusair, Peter Vajkoczy

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta neurochirurgica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Association between p-tau181 in cerebrospinal fluid and shunt response in patients with normal-pressure hydrocephalus.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Santhosh G Thavarajasingam *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. sgt16@ic.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9274-0350
Mahmoud El-Khatib *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Mark Rea *Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Salvatore RussoDepartment of Neurosurgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Johannes LemckeDepartment of Neurosurgery, Unfallkrankenhaus Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Lana Al-NusairFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Peter VajkoczyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Imperial College London · GBCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBUnfallkrankenhaus Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositive shunt response (SR) remains the gold standard for diagnosing idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). However, multiple pathologies mimic iNPH symptoms, making it difficult to select patients who will respond to shunt surgery. Although presenting features, extended lumbar drainage (ELD), infusion test (IT), intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPM), and tap test (TT) have been used to predict SR, uncertainty remains over which diagnostic test to choose.

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify clinical predictors of shunt responsiveness, evaluate their diagnostic effectiveness, and recommend the most effective diagnostic tests.

methodsEmbase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR were searched for original studies investigating clinical predictors of SR in iNPH patients. Included studies were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and eligible studies were evaluated using univariate and bivariate meta-analyses.

resultsThirty-five studies were included. Nine studies discussed the diagnostic use of presenting clinical features, 8 studies ELD, 8 studies IT, 11 studies ICPM, and 6 studies TT. A meta-analysis of 21 eligible studies was conducted for TT, ELD, IT, and ICPM. ICPM yielded the highest diagnostic effectiveness, with diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) = 50.9 and area under curve (AUC) = 0.836. ELD yielded DOR = 27.70 and AUC = 0.753, IT had DOR = 5.70 and AUC = 0.729, and TT scored DOR = 3.86 and AUC = 0.711.

conclusionIntraparenchymal ICPM is statistically the most effective diagnostic test, followed by ELD, IT, and lastly TT. Due to the higher accessibility of TT and IT, they are recommended to be used first line, using a timed-up-and-go improvement ≥ 5.6 s or a Rout cut-off range between 13 and 16 mmHg, respectively. Patients who test negative should ideally be followed up with ICPM, using mean ICP wave amplitude [Formula: see text] 4 mmHg, or 1- to 4-day ELD with an MMSE cut-off improvement [Formula: see text] 3. Future research must use standardized methodologies for each diagnostic test and uniform criteria for SR to allow better comparison.

Indexed as

Hydrocephalus, Normal PressureCerebrospinal Fluid ShuntsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDrainageHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicDiagnosisNormal pressure hydrocephalusPredictorsShuntShunt response

Identifiers

PMID34235589
PMCPMC8437907
OpenAlexW3182057396

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.