Evidence Hub

Radiological predictors of shunt response in the diagnosis and treatment of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thavarajasingam SG, El-Khatib M, Vemulapalli K, Iradukunda HAS, K SV, Borchert R, Russo S, Eide PK

Acta neurochirurgica, 2023

49 citations

Abstract

Background: Patients with the dementia subtype idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) may improve clinically following cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) diversion (shunt) surgery, though the predictors of shunt response remain debated. Currently, radiological features play an important role in the diagnosis of iNPH, but it is not well established which radiological markers most precisely predict shunt responsive iNPH.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify radiological predictors of shunt responsiveness, evaluate their diagnostic effectiveness, and recommend the most predictive radiological features.

Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Google Scholar, and JSTOR were searched for original studies investigating radiological predictors of shunt response in iNPH patients. Included studies were assessed using the ROBINS-1 tool, and eligible studies were evaluated using a univariate meta-analysis.

Results: Overall, 301 full-text papers were screened, of which 28 studies were included, and 26 different radiological features were identified, 5 of these met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis: disproportionately enlarged subarachnoid space (DESH), callosal angle, periventricular white matter changes, cerebral blood flow (CBF), and computerized tomography cisternography. The meta-analysis showed that only callosal angle and periventricular white matter changes significantly differentiated iNPH shunt responders from non-responders,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free