Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 469

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Value of Supplemental Prognostic Tests for the Preoperative Assessment of Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus

Marmarou, Anthony, Bergsneider, Marvin, Klinge, Petra, Relkin, Norman, Black, Peter McL.·2005·Neurosurgery

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) remains unclear. Moreover, the value of supplementary tests to predict which patients would benefit from placement of a shunt has not been established. This report develops evidence-based guidelines for the use of supplementary tests as an aid in prognosis. METHODS: MEDLINE searches from 1966 to the present were undertaken by use of the query NPH, normal-pressure hydrocephalus, lumbar drain, CSF [cerebrospinal fluid] tap test, and external CSF drainage in humans. This resulted in 242 articles. To provide a scientific, evidence-based review, we have chosen to restrict our analysis to clinically relevant studies usually consisting of large numbers of shunted NPH patients. Studies that did not specify INPH or secondary NPH were considered in a separate evidentiary table. RESULTS: Evidence-based guidelines for use in supplementary tests have been developed. A positive response to a 40- to 50-ml tap test has a higher degree of certainty for a favorable response to shunt placement than can be obtained by clinical examination. However, the tap test cannot be used as an exclusionary test because of its low sensitivity (26–61%). Determination of the CSF outflow resistance via an infusion test carries a higher sensitivity (57–100%) compared with the tap test and a similar positive predictive value of 75 to 92%. Prolonged external lumbar drainage in excess of 300 ml is associated with high sensitivity (50–100%) and high positive predictive value (80–100%). CONCLUSION: To date, a single standard for the prognostic evaluation of INPH patients is lacking. However, supplemental tests can increase predictive accuracy for prognosis to greater than 90%. Additional multicenter prospective randomized clinical trials are needed.

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

Crossref · 10.1227/01.neu.0000168184.01002.60

Cites

17 of 17 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 17 references

Cited by

See all 469

Metadata

Authors
Marmarou, A., Bergsneider, M., Klinge, P., Relkin, N., & Black, P. M.
Venue
Neurosurgery
Published
2005-09-01
Volume
57
Issue
suppl_3
Pages
S2-17-S2-28
ISSN
  • 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4040
OpenAlex
W2089887828
Cited by
469
References
17
FWCI
5.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 Supplemental Prognostic Tests for the Preoperative Assessment of Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1227/01.neu.0000168184.01002.60
The paper
Marmarou, A., Bergsneider, M., Klinge, P., Relkin, N., & Black, P. M. (2005). The Value of Supplemental Prognostic Tests for the Preoperative Assessment of Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000168184.01002.60

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.