ArticleNeurological research and practice2025
Instrument-supported gait analysis characterizes gait domain changes in patients with suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 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.
- Reducing assessment timing in Tap-Test-positive patients with iNPH: a 24-hour strategy and the exploratory role of the Symbol-Digit Modalities Test in surgical triage.Fluids and barriers of the CNS · 2026Article
- 6-minute walk test and the 3-metre backward walk test are sensitive to postoperative gait improvement in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus.BMJ neurology open · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a potentially reversible cause of cognitive impairment, urinary incontinence, and gait disturbances, which typically present with a characteristic slow, shuffling, and wide-based gait. Gait velocity, which is reduced relative to healthy controls, improves in iNPH patients following a spinal tap test. This study aimed at evaluating the criterion of a 20% gait velocity improvement in the 10 m walk test to identify responders and non-responders in a cohort of patients with probable iNPH receiving a spinal tap test as well as the added value of instrument-supported gait analysis.
methodsWe assessed pace, rhythm, variability, postural control, and force in 59 patients with clinically suspected iNPH undergoing a spinal tap test, applying the 10 m walk test and an instrument-supported gait analysis. The change in gait velocity assessed in the 10 m walk test was used to differentiate patients with a positive response to the spinal tap (> 20% improvement, responders) from those with no relevant response (< 20% improvement, non-responders). Group differences were analyzed using chi-square tests, independent sample t-tests, Mann-Whitney-U tests and repeated measure ANOVAs.
resultsUnlike non-responders (n = 39), responders (n = 20) showed significant changes in the gait domain pace in the 10 m walk test. Moreover, instrument-supported gait analyses revealed additional improvements in the gait domains variability, rhythm, postural control and force in responders only.
interpretationThis study confirmed the clinical utility of the 20% gait velocity improvement criterion for differentiating responders and non-responders in a cohort of patients with mostly probable iNPH, in whom clinical parameters alone were insufficient for classification. Notably, instrument-supported gait analysis validated this criterion by providing a more comprehensive characterization of gait disturbances compared to the 10 m walk test. However, further-especially longitudinal-studies are needed to reveal the full potential of the instrument-supported gait analysis in patients with (early/probable) 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.