The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Outcome of Shunting in Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus and the Value of Outcome Assessment in Shunted Patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop guidelines for assessing shunt outcome in patients with idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (INPH). To date, the literature available on this topic has been marked by disparate definitions of clinical improvement, varying postoperative follow-up protocols and periods, and substantial differences in the postoperative management. Because specific criteria for defining clinical improvement are seldom reported, conclusions drawn about shunt outcome may be subjective. METHODS: A MEDLINE search back to 1966 was undertaken using the query NPH, normal-pressure hydrocephalus, shunting, shunt treatment, shunt response, outcome, and clinical outcome. The criteria for selection were studies that included INPH from 1966 to the present in which the outcome of INPH was reported in patient groups of 20 or more. RESULTS: To date, there is no standard for outcome assessment of shunt treatment in INPH. The variable improvement rates reported are not only because of different criteria for selection of patients but also because of different postoperative assessment procedures and follow-up intervals. CONCLUSION: Studies that have established fixed protocols for follow-up have shown that short- and long-term periods after shunting are determined by many factors. Whereas short-term results were more likely to be influenced by shunt-associated risks, long-term results were independent of factors inherent to the shunt procedure and shunt complications, i.e., death and morbidity related to concomitant cerebrovascular and vascular diseases. Studies have shown that beyond 1 year after surgery, these factors definitely influence the clinical effect of shunting, making the 1-year postshunt period a potential determinant of the shunt outcome. Guidelines for outcome assessment were developed on the basis of the available evidence and consensus of expert opinion.
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
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
Halperin, J. J., Kurlan, R., Schwalb, J. M., Cusimano, M. D., Gronseth, G., & Gloss, D. (2015) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000002193 · Cited by 264
Diffusion tensor imaging in patients with adult chronic idiopathic hydrocephalus
Hattingen, E., Jurcoane, A., Melber, J., Blasel, S., Zanella, F. E., Neumann-Haefelin, T., & Singer, O. C. (2010) · Neurosurgery · doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000367801.35654.ec · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Klinge, P., Marmarou, A., Bergsneider, M., Relkin, N., & Black, P. M.
- Venue
- Neurosurgery
- Published
- 2005-09-01
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- suppl_3
- Pages
- S2-40-S2-52
- ISSN
- 0148-396X (ISSN-L)
- 1524-4040
- OpenAlex
- W2042631436
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.15
- 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: Outcome of Shunting in Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus and the Value of Outcome Assessment in Shunted Patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1227/01.neu.0000168187.01077.2f
- The paper
- Klinge, P., Marmarou, A., Bergsneider, M., Relkin, N., & Black, P. M. (2005). Outcome of Shunting in Idiopathic Normal-pressure Hydrocephalus and the Value of Outcome Assessment in Shunted Patients. Neurosurgery. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000168187.01077.2f
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.