Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39105473›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2024

Shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Ronald K B Pearce, Anastasia Gontsarova, Davina Richardson, Abigail M Methley, Hilary Clare Watt, Kevin Tsang, Christopher Carswell

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Cerebrospinal fluid shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a comprehensive meta‑analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Randomised controlled trials and iNPH.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors.

Ronald K B PearceDepartment of Neurology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Anastasia GontsarovaDepartment of Neuroradiology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Davina RichardsonDepartment of Neurophysiotherapy, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Abigail M MethleyDepartment of Clinical Neuropsychology, North Staffordshire Combined Healthcare NHS Trust, Stoke-On-Trent, UK.
Hilary Clare WattDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Kevin TsangDepartment of Neurosurgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Christopher CarswellDepartment of Neurology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNormal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) occurs when the brain ventricles expand, causing a triad of gait, cognitive, and urinary impairment. It can occur after a clear brain injury such as trauma, but can also occur without a clear cause (termed idiopathic, or iNPH). Non-randomised studies have shown a benefit from surgically diverting ventricular fluid to an area of lower pressure by cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-shunting in iNPH, but historically there have been limited randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm this.

objectivesTo determine the effect of CSF-shunting versus no CSF-shunting in people with iNPH and the frequency of adverse effects of CSF-shunting in iNPH. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate), LILACS (BIREME), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 15 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only RCTs of people who had symptoms of gait, cognitive, or urinary impairment with communicating hydrocephalus (Evans index of > 0.3) and normal CSF pressure. Control groups included those with no CSF shunts or those with CSF shunts that were in 'inactive' mode. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Where necessary, we contacted study authors requesting data not provided in the papers. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN

resultsWe included four RCTs, of which three were combined in a meta-analysis. The four RCTs included 140 participants (73 with immediate CSF-shunting and 67 controls who had delayed CSF-shunting) with an average age of 75 years. Risk of bias was low in all parallel-group outcomes evaluated apart from gait speed, cognitive function (general cognition and Symbol Digit Test) (some concerns) and adverse events, which were not blind-assessed. CSF-shunting probably improves gait speed at less than six months post-surgery (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24 to 0.99; 3 studies, 116 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). CSF-shunting may improve qualitative gait function at less than six months post-surgery by an uncertain amount (1 study, 88 participants; low-certainty evidence). CSF-shunting probably results in a large reduction of disability at less than six months post-surgery (risk ratio 2.08, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.31; 3 studies, 118 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of CSF-shunting on cognitive function at less than six months post-CSF-shunt surgery (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.74; 2 studies, 104 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of CSF-shunt surgery on adverse events (1 study, 88 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding the effect of CSF-shunting on quality of life. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe found moderate-certainty evidence that CSF-shunting likely improves gait speed and disability in iNPH in the relative short term. The evidence is very uncertain regarding cognition and adverse events. There were no longer-term RCT data for any of our prespecified outcomes. More studies are required to improve the certainty of these findings. In addition, more information is required regarding patient ethnicity and the effect of CSF-shunting on quality of life.

Indexed as

BiasCerebrospinal Fluid ShuntsHydrocephalus, Normal PressureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAgedCognitionGaitGait Disorders, NeurologicHumans

Identifiers

PMID39105473
PMCPMC11301990

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.