ArticleFrontiers in neurology2022
The Clinical Utility of the MOCA in iNPH Assessment.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of patients affected by INPH after external lumbar drainage: what is the better timing?Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Beyond early motor response: Longitudinal cognitive and gait assessments after extended lumbar drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus.European journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Real-Time Neuropsychological Testing for Hydrocephalus: Ultra-Fast Neuropsychological Testing During Infusion and Tap Test in Patients with Idiopathic Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We sought to estimate reliable change thresholds for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) for older adults with suspected Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (iNPH). Furthermore, we aimed to determine the likelihood that shunted patients will demonstrate significant improvement on the MoCA, and to identify possible predictors of this improvement. Methods: Patients ( Results: All nine of reliable change methods indicated that a 5-point increase in MoCA would be reliable for patients with a baseline MoCA from 16 to 22 (38.4% of patients). Furthermore, a majority of reliable change methods indicated that a 5-point increase in MoCA would be reliable for patients with a baseline MoCA from 14 to 25. Reliable change thresholds varied across methods from 4 to 7 points for patients outside of this range. 10.1% had at least a 5-point increase from baseline to post-TT/ELD. Compared to patients who did not receive a shunt, patients who received a shunt did not have lower average MoCA at baseline ( Conclusions: In patients with iNPH, clinicians could consider using a threshold of 5 points for determining whether iNPH-symptomatic patients have experienced cognitive benefits from cerebrospinal fluid drainage at an individual level. However, a reliable change cannot be detected for patients with a baseline MoCA of 26 or greater, necessitating a different cognitive assessment tool for these patients.
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.