Home › Research › Vascular contributions
Influence of comorbidities in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus - research and clinical care. A report of the ISHCSF task force on comorbidities in INPH
Malm J, Graff-Radford NR, Ishikawa M, Kristensen B, Leinonen V, Mori E, Owler BK, Tullberg M et al.. Fluids and barriers of the CNS, 2013-06-10
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (INPH) is a syndrome of ventriculomegaly, gait impairment, cognitive decline and incontinence that occurs in an elderly population prone to many types of comorbidities. Identification of the comorbidities is thus an important part of the clinical management of INPH patients. In 2011, a task force was appointed by the International Society for Hydrocephalus and Cerebrospinal Fluid Disorders (ISHCSF) with the objective to compile an evidence-based expert analysis of what we know and what we need to know regarding comorbidities in INPH. This article is the final report of the task force. The expert panel conducted a comprehensive review of the literature. After weighing the evidence, the various proposals were discussed and the final document was approved by all the task force members and represents a consensus of expert opinions. Recommendations regarding the following topics are given: I. Musculoskeletal conditions; II. Urinary problems; III. Vascular disease including risk factors, Binswanger disease, and white matter hyperintensities; IV. Mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease including biopsies; V. Other dementias (frontotemporal dementia, Lewy body, Parkinson); VI. Psychiatric and behavioral disorders; VII. Brain imaging; VIII. How to investigate and quantify. The task force concluded that comorbidity can be an important predictor of prognosis and post-operative outcome in INPH. Reported differences in outcomes among various INPH cohorts may be partly explained by variation in the rate and types of comorbidities at different hydrocephalus centers. Identification of comorbidities should thus be a central part of the clinical management of INPH where a detailed history, physical examination, and targeted investigations are the basis for diagnosis and grading. Future INPH research should focus on the contribution of comorbidity to overall morbidity, mortality and long-term outcomes.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Malm, J., Graff-Radford, N. R., Ishikawa, M., Kristensen, B., Leinonen, V., Mori, E., et al. (2013). Influence of comorbidities in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus - research and clinical care. A report of the ISHCSF task force on comorbidities in INPH. Fluids and barriers of the CNS. https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-8118-10-22
Vancouver
Malm J, Graff-Radford NR, Ishikawa M, Kristensen B, Leinonen V, Mori E, et al. Influence of comorbidities in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus - research and clinical care. A report of the ISHCSF task force on comorbidities in INPH. Fluids and barriers of the CNS. 2013. doi:10.1186/2045-8118-10-22. PMID: 23758953.
BibTeX
@article{malm2013-23758953,
author = {Malm, J. and Graff-Radford, N. R. and Ishikawa, M. and Kristensen, B. and Leinonen, V. and Mori, E. and Owler, B. K. and Tullberg, M. and others},
title = {{Influence of comorbidities in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus - research and clinical care. A report of the ISHCSF task force on comorbidities in INPH}},
journal = {Fluids and barriers of the CNS},
year = {2013},
doi = {10.1186/2045-8118-10-22},
pmid = {23758953},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1186/2045-8118-10-22}
}
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.
Key findings
- The task force concluded that comorbidity can be an important predictor of prognosis and post-operative outcome in INPH.
- Future INPH research should focus on the contribution of comorbidity to overall morbidity, mortality and long-term outcomes.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
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 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Fluids and barriers of the CNS) |
| 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 | 2013 — 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 23758953) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 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.
Related studies in Vascular contributions
Also tagged “vessel”
900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “vessel”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.