Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40205237›Full record

ArticleNeurosurgical review2025

Managing normal pressure hydrocephalus in the developing countries; personalizing the treatment.

Hussein Fathalla, Mohamed Adel Ghoneim, Amr El Katatny

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Hussein FathallaDivision of Neurosurgery, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. sehs.fathalla@gmail.com.
Mohamed Adel GhoneimDivision of Neurosurgery, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.
Amr El KatatnyDivision of Neurosurgery, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current recommended treatment for NPH is insertion of a programmable shunt. In developing countries however, this might sometimes not be feasible due to cost and logistical reasons. Patients in rural areas are required to travel hundreds of miles for frequent follow-up visits for reprogramming, rendering the treatment protocol troublesome and sometimes even not possible. Our approach was to treat these patients with standard gravitational shunts (MIETKE GAV) instead of programmable shunts and assess the outcome. 43 cases were treated by the authors from the period of 2018 to 2023. Only patients classified as probable NPH according to the INPH guidelines criteria were included. We used fixed pressure non-programmable gravitational shunts for all patients. Improvement was assessed using the Krauss method and only patients with 50% improvement or more were considered improved. There were 33 males and 10 females with a mean age was 74 years. Initially only 30 (69.7%) improved however, after a second surgery for 7 of the remaining 13 patients, the final number of improved patients were 35 (81.3%). Median follow up was 23 months. The use of fixed pressure gravitational shunts such as the GAV shunt, is a good second option for treating NPH patients in developing countries and rural communities. This approach provides a cheap, reliable, and practical solution for NPH patients living in rural areas, without the need for frequent follow-up visits. Although long-term follow-up is still needed, the success rate so far is satisfactory.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal Fluid ShuntsHydrocephalus, Normal PressurePrecision MedicineAgedAged, 80 and overDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeDeveloping countriesGravitational shuntsNormal pressure hydrocephalusProgrammable shunts

Identifiers

PMID40205237
PMCPMC11982093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.