Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42825924›Full record

SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2026

Cerebrospinal fluid shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a comprehensive meta‑analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Mohammed Altaha, Ayat Jassim Al Eid, Hoor Hussain Aloraidh, Zahraa Aqeel Alshakhs, Alanoud Salah Almukhaylid, Fatimah Sami Albatih, Joud Abdulaziz Abusharifah, Mohammed Buhulaigah, Lamees A Alhajri, Mohammed Alturki and 2 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Mohammed AltahaCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. altaha.mb@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0005-5072-5258
Ayat Jassim Al EidCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Hoor Hussain AloraidhCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Zahraa Aqeel AlshakhsCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Alanoud Salah AlmukhaylidCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Fatimah Sami AlbatihCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Joud Abdulaziz AbusharifahCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed BuhulaigahCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Lamees A AlhajriCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlturkiRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Maryam Sami A BujulayaCollege of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.
Majid AljoghaimanDepartment of Surgery, College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIdiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a potentially reversible neurocognitive disorder causing severe functional decline in the elderly. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting aims to relieve ventricular stress and restore perfusion; however, high-quality placebo-controlled evidence has historically been limited.

methodsThis PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420261372290) evaluated adults aged 60 years or older with iNPH. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate active CSF shunting against placebo or no shunting. The primary outcome was the change in gait speed using standardized timed assessments. Data were pooled using a restricted maximum-likelihood random-effects model, supplemented by Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) and GRADE assessment to control for random error.

resultsFour RCTs comprising 224 patients were included. Shunting significantly improved the primary outcome of gait velocity (SMD 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.01; P < 0.0001). Significant secondary improvements were observed in qualitative gait function (SMD 0.81, P = 0.007), functional independence (OR 3.92, P < 0.0001), continuous modified Rankin Scale reduction (MD - 0.73, P < 0.0001), Mini-Mental State Examination or Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores (SMD 0.37, P = 0.009), and Symbol Digit Test performance (SMD 0.47, P = 0.002). TSA confirmed conclusive evidence for functional disability reduction before reaching the required information size. Shunting increased the incidence of positional headaches (OR 5.62, 95% CI 1.16 to 27.18). The pooled estimate for subdural hematoma was imprecise and did not reach statistical significance (OR 4.07, 95% CI 0.62 to 26.94) and should not be interpreted as evidence of an absence of risk given the small number of events. No significant difference was observed for ischemic stroke (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.33), also based on few events.

conclusionCerebrospinal fluid shunting appears to provide meaningful clinical benefit in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus, particularly through improvement in gait velocity and functional independence. However, the evidence suggests a more limited or uncertain effect on cognitive and urinary symptoms. Importantly, the available randomized evidence is too imprecise to rule out an increase in major complications such as surgically treated subdural hematoma; positional headaches were significantly more frequent with shunting, and the largest included trial independently reported a significant excess of subdural bleeding. These safety signals warrant careful discussion with patients considering shunt surgery. These findings support shunting as an effective therapeutic option for appropriately selected patients with iNPH, while emphasizing the need for careful patient selection, standardized outcome assessment, and further high-quality, large-scale trials with longer follow-up.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal Fluid ShuntsHydrocephalus, Normal PressureRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicHumansCerebrospinal fluid shuntingGait velocityMeta‑analysisNormal pressure hydrocephalusRandomized controlled trialVentriculoperitoneal shunt

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.