SynthesisNeuroradiology2025
Systematic review and meta-analysis of MRI-based cerebrospinal fluid flow reference values in normal pressure hydrocephalus: unveiling diagnostic inconsistencies.
Synthesis in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moving on in hydrocephalus imaging: from 2D to 3D biomarkers.Acta neurochirurgica · 2026Review
- CSF-flow prior and after spinal tap test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus-an exploratory study using real-time phase-contrast MRI.Frontiers in neuroimaging · 2025Article
- Differential diagnosis of non-hydrocephalus ventricular dilation and hydrocephalus.Frontiers in neurologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe primary aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the consistency and reliability of MRI-based cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) flow reference values in the diagnosis of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (iNPH). The research seeks to identify the sources of variability in CSF flow measurements and evaluate which parameters offer the most reliable diagnostic value.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Relevant studies were identified through a comprehensive search in PubMed. The inclusion criteria focused on studies reporting quantitative CSF flow parameters such as Stroke Volume (SV), Peak Systolic Velocity (PSV), Peak Diastolic Velocity (PDV), and Mean Flow (MF) in iNPH patients. Data were synthesized using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsThe analysis revealed significant variability in SV and PSV across studies, likely driven by differences in MRI protocols, equipment, and patient populations. MF, however, consistently showed elevated values in iNPH patients compared to controls (effect size: 0.143 ml/s; 95% CI: 0.131-0.155 ml/s), suggesting its potential as a reliable diagnostic marker for iNPH.
conclusionMF appears to be the most reliable parameter for diagnosing iNPH, given its consistency across studies. However, the substantial variability in SV and PSV underscores the need for standardized MRI protocols to improve the diagnostic accuracy of CSF flow measurements. Future research should prioritize the development of unified imaging protocols to reduce heterogeneity and enhance diagnostic reliability in iNPH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40266315What 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.