ReviewEye (London, England)2023
Inaccuracy of idiopathic intracranial hypertension diagnosis in case reports.
Review in Eye (London, England), 2023. 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.
- Extensive Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis With Obstructive Hydrocephalus in a Young Female With Underlying Essential Thrombocythemia: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Migratory Venous Sinus Stenosis After Stenting for Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: a Single-Center Case Series.Clinical neuroradiology · 2026Article
- A Colloid Cyst Masquerading As Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension in a Young Woman: A Diagnostic Pitfall.Cureus · 2025Article
- Tortuous occipital emissary vein combined with dural venous sinus stenosis in contrast-enhanced MRV for evaluation of idiopathic intracranial hypertension.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
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
backgroundWe reviewed the medical case report literature to determine the proportion of cases of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) that were either inappropriately labelled as IIH or prematurely given this diagnosis.
methodsWe searched OVID MEDLINE from 2012 to 2022 to identify case reports that diagnosed patients with IIH. Case reports were assessed for diagnostic accuracy using Friedman et al.'s revised diagnostic criteria for primary pseudotumor cerebri syndrome. Our primary outcome was the crude prevalence of inappropriate or premature IIH diagnoses. Our secondary outcome was determining if inaccurate IIH diagnoses were associated with variables such as journal subscription model and impact factor, author affiliation, country of origin, and year of publication.
resultsA total of 33/185 case reports (17.8%) either incorrectly labelled a patient as having IIH or did not perform all of the investigations necessary to make a diagnosis of IIH. Some of these studies (4.8%) were believed to still represent 'probable' IIH given the clinical presentation, whereas 13.0% of studies were determined to have mislabelled their patients as having IIH. The most common reason that case reports did not meet diagnostic criteria included: a lack of MRV in atypical patient cases (42.4%, n = 14), no papilledema in addition to a lack of characteristic neuroimaging features (33.3%, n = 11), intracranial hypertension being secondary to another documented cause (12.1%, n = 4), normal LP opening pressure in addition to other factors (12.1%,n = 4), no description of neuroimaging (6.1%, n = 2), and abnormal CSF composition (6.1%, n = 2). Case reports that used the term 'IIH' incorrectly had a significantly lower journal impact factor (2.0 vs. 2.6, p = 0.01).
conclusionsThere is a high prevalence of premature or inappropriate diagnoses of IIH in the peer-reviewed case report literature. Adherence to published diagnostic criteria is needed when publishing IIH case reports, and authors are expected to report all relevant data in their report to ensure that an accurate diagnosis is made.
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.