alzhub.org
Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Home › Research › Digital health tools

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 et al.. Neurologia medico-chirurgica, 2012-01-01

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 36 out of 100. Digital health tools

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Among the various disorders manifesting dementia, gait disturbance, and urinary incontinence in the elderly population, idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is becoming of great importance. After the publication of the first edition of the Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus in 2004 (the English version was published in 2008), clinical awareness of iNPH has risen dramatically, and the number of shunt surgeries has increased rapidly across Japan. Clinical and basic research on iNPH has increased significantly, and more high-level evidence has since been generated. The second edition of the Japanese Guidelines was thus published in July 2011, to provide a series of timely evidence-based recommendations related to iNPH. The revision of the Guidelines has been undertaken by a multidisciplinary expert working group of the Japanese Society of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus in conjunction with the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare research project on "Studies on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of normal pressure hydrocephalus." This English version of the second edition of the Guidelines was made to share these ideas with the international community and to promote international research on iNPH.

Key findings

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →

Study details

How this study scored 36/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 0 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 21 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 36 of 100. Total 36 of 100.21 of the 58 points we could judge = 36 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neurologia medico-chirurgica)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 0 / 12 No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2012 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 23183074)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 21 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100.
Total 36 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Mori, E., Ishikawa, M., Kato, T., Kazui, H., Miyake, H., Miyajima, M., et al. (2012). Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neurologia medico-chirurgica. https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.52.775

Vancouver

Mori E, Ishikawa M, Kato T, Kazui H, Miyake H, Miyajima M, et al. Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition. Neurologia medico-chirurgica. 2012. doi:10.2176/nmc.52.775. PMID: 23183074.

BibTeX

@article{mori2012-23183074,
  author  = {Mori, E. and Ishikawa, M. and Kato, T. and Kazui, H. and Miyake, H. and Miyajima, M. and Nakajima, M. and Hashimoto, M. and others},
  title   = {{Guidelines for management of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: second edition}},
  journal = {Neurologia medico-chirurgica},
  year    = {2012},
  doi     = {10.2176/nmc.52.775},
  pmid    = {23183074},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.2176/nmc.52.775}
}

Related studies in Digital health tools

Also tagged “hydrocephalus”

73 studies in the library carry the topic tag “hydrocephalus”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 73 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Digital health tools

See all studies in Digital health tools →