Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 234

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Open access
Robert Walchenbach, E Geiger, Raphael T.W.M. Thomeer, Jan A. L. Vanneste·2002·PubMed

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: It has been reported that temporary external lumbar CSF drainage (ELD) is a very accurate test for predicting the outcome after ventricular shunting in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). However, only a limited number of patients have been studied for assessing the predictive accuracy of ELD. Therefore, the value of ELD in predicting the outcome after a ventriculoperitoneal shunt in patients with presumed NPH was assessed. METHODS: All patients with presumed NPH were invited to participate in this study. Clinical assessment, MRI, and neuropsychological evaluation were followed by a lumbar CSF tap test consisting of removing 40 ml CSF. When this test resulted in marked clinical improvement of gait impairment, mental disturbances, or both, the patient was shunted without further tests. In patients with either questionable or no improvement after the CSF tap test, ELD was carried out. The value of ELD for predicting the outcome after shunting was calculated by correlating the results of ELD with that of ventriculoperitoneal shunting. RESULTS: Between January 1994 and December 2000, 49 presumed NPH patients from three institutes were included. Forty three had idiopathic, and the remaining six had secondary NPH. Forty eight patients were shunted; 39 had an ELD of whom 38 completed the test. After 2 months 35 of the 48 (73%) shunted patients had improved. The predictive value of a positive ELD was 87% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 62-98) and that of a negative ELD 36% (95% CI 17-59). In two patients serious test related complications (meningitis) occurred without residual deficit. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that although the predictive value of a positive ELD is high, that of a negative ELD is deceptively low because of the high rate of false negative results. The costs and invasiveness of the test and the possibility of serious test related complications further limits its usefulness in managing patients with presumed NPH.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 234

Metadata

Authors
Walchenbach, R., Geiger, E., Thomeer, R. T. W. M., & Vanneste, J. A. L.
Venue
PubMed
Publisher
National Institutes of Health
Published
2002-04-01
Volume
72
Issue
4
Pages
503-6
OpenAlex
W2164368394
Cited by
234
References
2
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503
The paper
Walchenbach, R., Geiger, E., Thomeer, R. T. W. M., & Vanneste, J. A. L. (2002). The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.72.4.503

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.