ArticleJournal of neurointerventional surgery2026
Transverse venous sinus stenting versus cerebrospinal fluid shunting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: a multi-institutional and multinational database study.
Article in Journal of neurointerventional surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Time is vision: a systematic review of urgent venous sinus stenting for fulminant idiopathic intracranial hypertension.Frontiers in neurologyPooled it
- First-in-Human Treatment of Medically Refractory Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension With the eShunt System: Case Report.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Ventriculoperitoneal shunt versus transverse sinus stenting in idiopathic intracranial hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Brain & spine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting and transverse venous sinus (TVS) stenting are promising treatment choices for idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH), addressing different aspects of IIH pathophysiology. However, large-scale comparative data remain limited.
methodsWe performed a multinational, multi-institutional, retrospective propensity score-matched analysis using the TriNetX platform. Adult patients diagnosed with IIH who underwent either TVS stenting or CSF shunting were included. The primary outcome was treatment failure, defined as the need for subsequent procedures (repeat TVS stenting, CSF shunt, or optic nerve fenestration). Secondary outcomes included residual symptoms (headache, visual disturbances, dizziness, and pulsatile tinnitus), ongoing use of IIH-related medications (furosemide, acetazolamide, and topiramate), and healthcare utilization, assessed through unplanned hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits at 1 year follow-up.
resultsOf 134 530 IIH patients identified, 1362 underwent TVS stenting and 5278 underwent CSF shunting. After propensity score matching, patients who received TVS stenting had significantly lower odds of repeat interventions (9.6% vs 38.6%; OR 0.169, 95% CI 0.136 to 0.212, P<0.001). They also had significantly lower odds of residual headache, visual disturbances, and papilledema. However, stenting was associated with higher odds of persistent pulsatile tinnitus (6.7% vs 2.2%; OR 3.183, P<0.001). TVS stenting was associated with lower odds of unplanned inpatient readmissions (24.1% vs 40.5%; OR 0.466, P<0.001) and ED visits (22.0% vs 34.0%; OR 0.548, P<0.001).
conclusionBoth TVS stenting and CSF shunting resulted in symptomatic improvement and reduced medication use in patients with IIH. However, stenting was associated with significantly lower treatment failure rates, fewer residual papilledema, headaches and visual symptoms, and reduced healthcare utilization. Persistent pulsatile tinnitus was more common following stenting.
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.