↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 Mendeley
Title
Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010033.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarina Ivana Tudor, Mario Tudor, Jenny McCleery, Josip Car

Abstract

Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a type of communicating hydrocephalus also known as non-obstructive hydrocephalus. This type of hydrocephalus is caused by impaired cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption without any obstruction in the ventricular system and is associated with normal cerebrospinal fluid pressure. It is characterised clinically by gait disturbance, cognitive dysfunction, and urinary incontinence (known as the Hakim-Adams triad). The exact cause of iNPH is unknown. It may be managed conservatively or treated surgically by inserting a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) or ventriculoatrial (VA) shunt. However, a substantial number of patients do not respond well to surgical treatment, complication rates are high and there is often a need for further surgery. Endoscopic third ventriculostomy (ETV) is an alternative surgical intervention. It has been suggested that ETV may lead to better outcomes, including fewer complications. To determine the effectiveness of ETV for treatment of patients with iNPH compared to conservative therapy, or shunting of CSF using VP or VA shunts.To assess the perioperative and postoperative complication rates in patients with iNPH after ETV compared to conservative therapy, VP or VA shunting. We searched for eligible studies using ALOIS: a comprehensive register of dementia studies, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and several bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and LILACS (BIREME).We also searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) to identify potentially relevant reviews. The search strategy was adapted for other databases, using the most appropriate controlled vocabulary for each. We did not apply any language or time restrictions. The searches were performed in August 2014. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ETV treatment of iNPH. Patients had to have at least two symptoms of the Hakim-Adams triad. Exclusion criteria were obstructive causes of hydrocephalus, other significant intracranial pathology and other confirmed causes of dementia. The eligible comparators were conservative treatment or shunting using VP and VA shunts. Two review authors independently screened search results, selected eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for additional data. Only one study met the inclusion criteria: an RCT comparing effectiveness of ETV and non-programmable VP shunts in 42 patients with iNPH. The study was conducted in Brazil between 2009 and 2012. The overall study risk of bias was high. The primary outcome in the study was the proportion of patients with improved symptoms one year after surgery, determined as a change of at least two points on the Japanese NPH scale. Due to imprecision in the results, it was not possible to determine whether there was any difference between groups in the proportion of patients who improved 3 or 12 months after surgery (3 months: odds ration (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 4.76, n = 42; 12 months: OR 2.5, 95% CI 0.62 to 10.11, n = 38). We were unable to estimate the effect of treatment on other efficacy outcomes (cognition, balance, function, gait and mobility) because they were inadequately reported. Of the 26 patients in the VP shunting group, 5 developed subdural hematoma postoperatively, while there were no complications among the 16 patients in the ETV group (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.3, n = 42), but the estimate was too imprecise to determine whether this was likely to reflect a true difference in complication rates. This was also the case for rates of further surgical intervention (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.24, n = 42). There were no deaths during the trial. We judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes to be very low because of a high risk of selection, attrition and reporting bias and serious imprecision in the results. The only randomised trial of ETV for iNPH compares it to an intervention which is not a standard practice (VP shunting using a non-programmable valve). The evidence from this study is inconclusive and of very low quality. Clinicians should be aware of the limitations of the evidence. There is a need for more robust research on this topic to be able to determine the effectiveness of ETV in patients with iNPH.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 186 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 19%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Other 17 9%
Other 37 20%
Unknown 37 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Neuroscience 15 8%
Psychology 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 21 11%
Unknown 43 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2020.
All research outputs
#5,668,392
of 17,525,923 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,149
of 11,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,221
of 240,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,525,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.