Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38275188›Full record

SynthesisCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2024

Utility of cortical tissue analysis in normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Ana B W Greenberg, Kedous Y Mekbib, Neel H Mehta, Emre Kiziltug, Phan Q Duy, Hannah R Smith, Antti Junkkari, Ville Leinonen, Bradley T Hyman, Diane Chan and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Degenerative pathologies on cortical biopsy, dopaminergic depletion, and shunt efficacy in iNPH.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana B W GreenbergDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Kedous Y MekbibDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Neel H MehtaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Emre KiziltugDepartment of Neurosurgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Phan Q DuyDepartment of Neurosurgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, United States.
Hannah R SmithDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Antti JunkkariBroad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA 02142, United States.
Ville LeinonenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio 70211, Finland.
Bradley T HymanDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Diane ChanDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
William T CurryDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Steven E ArnoldDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Frederick G Barker IiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Matthew P FroschDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Kristopher T KahleDepartment of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USYale University · USBroad Institute · USKuopio University Hospital · FI

Funding

Human Genetics and Molecular Mechanisms of Congenital HydrocephalusR01NS111029 · NINDS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI DENIZ, ENGIN, JIN, SHENG CHIH · 2020 to 2024
$2.5M
NIH HHS 5RO1NS111029-04NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS111029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical improvement following neurosurgical cerebrospinal fluid shunting for presumed idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus is variable. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients may have undetected Alzheimer's disease-related cortical pathology that confounds diagnosis and clinical outcomes. In this study, we sought to determine the utility of cortical tissue immuno-analysis in predicting shunting outcomes in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients. We performed a pooled analysis using a systematic review as well as analysis of a new, original patient cohort. Of the 2707 screened studies, 3 studies with a total of 229 idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis alongside our original cohort. Pooled statistics of shunting outcomes for the 229 idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients and our new cohort of 36 idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients revealed that patients with Aβ + pathology were significantly more likely to exhibit shunt nonresponsiveness than patients with negative pathology. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients with Alzheimer's disease -related cortical pathology may be at a higher risk of treatment facing unfavorable outcomes following cerebrospinal fluid shunting. Thus, cortical tissue analysis from living patients may be a useful diagnostic and prognostic adjunct for patients with presumed idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus and potentially other neurodegenerative conditions affecting the cerebral cortex.

Indexed as

Alzheimer DiseaseHydrocephalus, Normal PressureCerebral CortexHumansAmyloid BetaBiomarkerDementiaShunt OutcomeTau

Identifiers

PMID38275188
PMCPMC10839843
OpenAlexW4391263709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.