ArticleThe journal of headache and pain2024
The additive value of complementing diagnostic idiopathic intracranial hypertension criteria by MRI - an external validation study.
Article in The journal of headache and pain, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- MRI-based evaluation of cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and optic nerve subarachnoid space alterations in idiopathic intracranial hypertension and normal tension glaucoma: a systematic review.BMC medical imaging · 2026Pooled it
- Metabolic Dysfunction in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: Current Theories and Updates.Aging and disease · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, diagnostic criteria including a standardized MRI criterion were presented to identify patients suffering from idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) proposing that IIH might be defined by two out of three objective findings (papilledema, ≥ 25 cm cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure (CSF-OP) and ≥ 3/4 neuroimaging signs).
methodsTo provide independent external validation, we retrospectively applied the proposed diagnostic criteria to our cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of IIH from the Vienna IIH database. Neuroimaging was reevaluated for IIH signs according to standardized definitions by a blinded expert neuroradiologist. We determined isolated diagnostic accuracy of the neuroimaging criterion (≥ 3/4 signs) as well as overall accuracy of the new proposed criteria.
resultsWe included patients with IIH (n = 102) and patients without IIH (no-IIH, n = 23). Baseline characteristics were balanced between IIH and no-IIH groups, but papilledema and CSF-OP were significantly higher in IIH. For the presence of ≥ 3/4 MRI signs, sensitivity was 39.2% and specificity was 91.3% with positive predictive value (PPV) of 95.2% and negative predictive value (NPV) 25.3%. Reclassifying our cohort according to the 2/3 IIH definition correctly identified 100% of patients without IIH, with definite IIH and suggested to have IIH without papilledema by Friedman criteria, respectively.
conclusionThe standardized neuroimaging criteria are easily applicable in clinical routine and provide moderate sensitivity and excellent specificity to identify patients with IIH. Defining IIH by 2/3 criteria significantly simplifies diagnosis without compromising accuracy.
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.