ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Differential diagnosis of non-hydrocephalus ventricular dilation and hydrocephalus.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ventriculomegaly is a common structural neuroimaging finding, yet its differentiation from hydrocephalus remains a substantial clinical challenge. Misclassification of non-hydrocephalic ventriculomegaly as hydrocephalus, or of hydrocephalus as simple ventriculomegaly, may result in inappropriate management, including unnecessary shunt surgery or delayed treatment. Accurate discrimination between these entities is therefore critical for optimal clinical decision-making. Based on a review of the major biomedical databases, we summarized current approaches to differentiating non-hydrocephalic ventriculomegaly from hydrocephalus using neuroimaging, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) dynamics, biomarkers, and clinical symptoms, with the goal of establishing an integrated diagnostic framework. Neuroimaging markers, including the Evans Index (EI), callosal angle (CA), and disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid-space hydrocephalus (DESH), are useful for characterizing the pattern of ventricular enlargement, while advanced modalities such as phase-contrast MRI and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) further enhance diagnostic performance. Assessment of CSF dynamics through intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring, lumbar infusion testing, and resistance to CSF outflow (Rout) provides important insights into CSF circulatory dysfunction. In addition, CSF biomarkers such as tau and amyloid-β may assist in distinguishing hydrocephalus from neurodegenerative disease and age-related ventriculomegaly. Although gait disturbance, cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence represent the classic clinical triad of hydrocephalus, symptom overlap across disorders limits their diagnostic specificity. Clinical assessment should therefore incorporate symptom patterns, temporal evolution, and treatment responsiveness. Overall, accurate differentiation between non-hydrocephalic ventriculomegaly and hydrocephalus requires a multidimensional strategy integrating neuroimaging, CSF dynamics, biomarkers, and clinical symptoms. This comprehensive framework may improve diagnostic accuracy and guide clinical management.
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.