ReviewBrain & spine2025
Endoscopic third ventriculostomy in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Efficacy and possible positive predictors: a systematic review.
Review in Brain & spine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current best practice for the treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) involves ventriculoperitoneal shunt implantation, which is associated with several long-term complications. Throughout the last two decades endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) has emerged as an alternate therapeutic modality. This modality promises a lower incidence of surgical and postoperative complications. This review focuses on patients with iNPH treated via ETV, compares the efficacy of ETV between individual studies and summarizes predictive measures of ETV success. Methods: The development of the protocol was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis Protocols 2015 statement. Relevant literature was selected using complex registers and in several bibliographical databases. A total of 17 original articles comparing the efficacy of ETV were selected for the review, 12 of which were used to analyze positive predictors of ETV therapy. Results: A total of 282 patients with iNPH underwent ETV, with an average efficacy 63.7 %. Positive predictors of ETV treatment were the presence of pathological outflow resistance (R Conclusion: Endoscopic treatment of patients with iNPH remains controversial and shunt surgery remains the treatment of choice. The analyzed studies show that a subset of patients profit from ETV. Further studies with robust randomized cohorts comparing ETV to shunting are necessary.
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.