ArticleBMJ neurology open2025
Diagnostic process, misdiagnosis and bias in suspected idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a retrospective observational cohort study.
Article in BMJ neurology open, 2025. 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.
- MRI features in atypical idiopathic intracranial hypertension.European radiology · 2026Article
- Surgical Interventions in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension-A Comprehensive Multi-Center Study of Outcome and the Role of Treatment Indication.European journal of neurology · 2026Observational
- The Use of Combined Fundus Photography and Perimetry for the Assessment of Patients Referred for Intracranial Hypertension or Follow-Up of the Diagnosis in a Tertiary Headache Center.European journal of neurology · 2026Article
- Routine Blood and Cerebrospinal Fluid Markers in Newly Diagnosed Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: An Exploratory Case-Control Study.Eye and brain · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Misdiagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is prevalent and potentially harmful. We evaluated the diagnostic process of IIH and the impact of implementing a National Guideline (NG) on IIH management to improve patient care. Method: In this observational retrospective study, we retrieved data on diagnostic investigations, duration, errors and causes for suspecting IIH from patients referred to the Danish Headache Center by suspected new-onset IIH from January 2020 to September 2022. We compared outcomes by final diagnosis (true vs disproven IIH) and the period before and after implementation of the NG. Level of significance was Bonferroni adjusted to p<0.002. Results: 96 patients were referred. We confirmed IIH in 27 (28%) and disproved IIH in 69 (72%) whose final diagnoses were predominantly headache disorders (70%) and pseudo-papilloedema (12%). True IIH was discovered by optic disc oedema (n=25, none detected by neurologists); neuroimaging indicating elevated intracranial pressure (n=1) or a typical clinical phenotype (n=1) aided little but often elicited IIH suspicion suggesting anchoring bias with premature closure. Misdiagnosis affected 11% (n=11). Diagnostic workup was more comprehensive and faster in true IIH (p<0.001). Mismanagement dropped by implementation of the NG (from 44% to 20%, p=0.02). Conclusion: Optic disc oedema is the most predictive determinant of true IIH; neuroimaging and phenotype alone have poor diagnostic value and introduce bias. Fundus exam is urgent and decisive in suspected IIH and should guide diagnostic strategy to mitigate unnecessary investigations and preserve vision. An NG reduced diagnostic errors and optimised the diagnostic process.
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.