ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Efficacy and safety of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus shunting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Outcomes and Efficacy of Programmable Versus Nonprogrammable Ventriculoperitoneal Shunts in the Management of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: A Retrospective Study.Neurology research international · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveShunting is commonly used in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH). However, evidence comparing the relative effectiveness and safety of different iNPH shunting methods is lacking. Therefore, this systematic review investigated the efficacy and safety of different iNPH shunts.
methodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science databases were systematically searched for articles comparing iNPH shunting from inception to July 29th, 2023 to identify randomized controlled trails or cohort studies comparing iNPH shunting with placebo or other treatment. Evidence was summarized using fixed and randomized effects frequentist meta-analysis when the I
resultsEleven studies including 1417 participants were initially identified. All included randomized controlled trials had a high risk of bias, while cohort studies had a low risk of bias. Ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunting was effective at decreasing the times of 10m walks (MD=-2.52, 95% CI: -4.78 to -0.26, I
conclusionVP and LP are the best medical treatments for patients with iNPH.
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.