The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Diagnosing Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The precise incidence and prevalence of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) is not known, and evidence-based clinical diagnostic criteria have not been developed previously. This report contains evidence-based guidelines for clinical diagnosis of INPH that are intended to facilitate future epidemiological studies of INPH, promote earlier and more accurate diagnosis, and ultimately improve treatment outcome. METHODS: The criteria for the diagnosis of INPH are based on evidence from the medical literature, supplemented as necessary by expert opinion. From 1966 to 2003, 653 publications on "normal-pressure hydrocephalus" were cited in MEDLINE, including 29 articles that met the more stringent criteria of including "idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus" in their title. Additional studies were considered that explicitly identified INPH cases and/or specified the criteria for a diagnosis of INPH. Studies were graded according to the class of evidence and results summarized in evidentiary tables. For issues of clinical relevance that lacked substantive evidence from the medical literature, the opinions of consulting experts were considered and contributed to "Options." RESULTS: Evidence-based guidelines for the clinical diagnosis of INPH have been developed. A detailed understanding of the range of clinical manifestations of this disorder and adherence to practice guidelines should improve the timely and accurate recognition of this disorder. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that INPH be classified into probable, possible, and unlikely categories. We hope that these criteria will be widely applied in clinical practice and will promote greater consistency in patient selection in future clinical investigations involving INPH.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Bridel, C., van Wieringen, W. N., Zetterberg, H., Tijms, B. M., Teunissen, C. E., and the NFL Group, Alvarez-Cermeño, J. C., Andreasson, U., Axelsson, M., Bäckström, D. C., et al. (2019) · JAMA Neurology · doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1534 · Cited by 764
Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Second Edition
MORI, E., ISHIKAWA, M., KATO, T., KAZUI, H., MIYAKE, H., MIYAJIMA, M., NAKAJIMA, M., HASHIMOTO, M., KURIYAMA, N., TOKUDA, T., et al. (2012) · Neurologia medico-chirurgica · doi:10.2176/nmc.52.775 · Cited by 666
Mollenhauer, B., Locascio, J. J., Schulz-Schaeffer, W., Sixel-Döring, F., Trenkwalder, C., & Schlossmacher, M. G. (2011) · The Lancet Neurology · doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(11)70014-x · Cited by 622
NAKAJIMA, M., YAMADA, S., MIYAJIMA, M., ISHII, K., KURIYAMA, N., KAZUI, H., KANEMOTO, H., SUEHIRO, T., YOSHIYAMA, K., KAMEDA, M., et al. (2021) · Neurologia medico-chirurgica · doi:10.2176/nmc.st.2020-0292 · Cited by 594
Changing perspectives regarding late-life dementia
Fotuhi, M., Hachinski, V., & Whitehouse, P. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2009.175 · Cited by 291
Metadata
- Authors
- Relkin, N., Marmarou, A., Klinge, P., Bergsneider, M., & Black, P. M.
- Venue
- Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2005-09-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- suppl_3
- Pages
- S2-4-S2-16
- ISSN
- 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4040
- OpenAlex
- W2060269541
- Cited by
- 1,224
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.34
- 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: Diagnosing Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1227/01.neu.0000168185.29659.c5
- The paper
- Relkin, N., Marmarou, A., Klinge, P., Bergsneider, M., & Black, P. M. (2005). Diagnosing Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000168185.29659.c5
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.