ReviewFrontiers in neurology2022
Update on the Cognitive Presentations of iNPH for Clinicians.
Review 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Cognitive assessment methods and outcomes following shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH): a systematic review and meta-analysis.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Pooled it
- Ventricular volumetry in relation to clinical response and overdrainage after shunt surgery in idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a three-year prospective study.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Alzheimer's disease core biomarkers are associated with worse baseline and postoperative cognitive profiles in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: findings from the Bologna PRO-Hydro study.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- Clinical and Radiological Evolution of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Critical Review.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Review
- Cognitive profile and frailty in patients with idiopathic normal pressure.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This mini-review focuses on cognitive impairment in iNPH. This symptom is one of the characteristic triad of symptoms in a condition long considered to be the only treatable dementia. We present an update on recent developments in clinical, neuropsychological, neuroimaging and biomarker aspects. Significant advances in our understanding have been made, notably regarding biomarkers, but iNPH remains a difficult diagnosis. Stronger evidence for permanent surgical treatment is emerging but selection for treatment remains challenging, particularly with regards to cognitive presentations. Encouragingly, there has been increasing interest in iNPH, but more research is required to better define the underlying pathology and delineate it from overlapping conditions, in order to inform best practise for the clinician managing the cognitively impaired patient. In the meantime, we strongly encourage a multidisciplinary approach and a structured service pathway to maximise patient benefit.
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.