Home › Research › Digital health tools
Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A prospective, population-based study
Andersson J, Rosell M, Kockum K, Lilja-Lund O, Söderström L, Laurell K.. PloS one, 2019-05-29
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Background Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) causing gait impairment, dementia and urinary incontinence among the elderly, is probably under-diagnosed and under-treated. Despite being known since the 1960s, there is still a lack of prospective, population-based studies on the prevalence of iNPH. Such studies are warranted to minimize selection bias and estimate the true prevalence of the disease. Methods The prevalence of iNPH was determined in a randomly selected sample of residents, aged 65 years and older, in the Swedish county of Jämtland. Out of 1,000 individuals invited to participate, 673 (67.3%) completed a questionnaire with seven questions on iNPH symptoms. A subgroup, with and without self-reported symptoms, participated in clinical and radiological evaluations and were diagnosed according to international guidelines. Measurement of cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure was not performed as it was considered too invasive. Results Those who reported at least two symptoms in the questionnaire (n = 117) and 51 randomly selected individuals with 0-1 symptom participated in further examinations. Out of them, 25 individuals received the diagnosis probable iNPH according to American-European guidelines (except for the criterion of CSF opening pressure) corresponding to a prevalence of 3.7%. The prevalence of iNPH was four times higher among those aged 80 years and older (8.9%) than among those aged 65-79 years (2.1%) (p <0.001). The difference in prevalence between men (4.6%) and women (2.9%) was not significant (p = 0.24). When iNPH was diagnosed according to the Japanese guidelines the prevalence was 1.5. Conclusions In this prospective, population-based study the prevalence of iNPH was 3.7% among individuals 65 years and older, and more common in the higher age group, 80 years and above. INPH should be increasingly recognized since it is a fairly common condition and an important cause of gait impairment and dementia among the elderly that can be effectively treated by shunt surgery.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Andersson, J., Rosell, M., Kockum, K., Lilja-Lund, O., Söderström, L., & Laurell, K. (2019). Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A prospective, population-based study. PloS one. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217705
Vancouver
Andersson J, Rosell M, Kockum K, Lilja-Lund O, Söderström L, Laurell K. Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A prospective, population-based study. PloS one. 2019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0217705. PMID: 31141553.
BibTeX
@article{andersson2019-31141553,
author = {Andersson, J. and Rosell, M. and Kockum, K. and Lilja-Lund, O. and Söderström, L. and Laurell, K.},
title = {{Prevalence of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: A prospective, population-based study}},
journal = {PloS one},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0217705},
pmid = {31141553},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217705}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Those who reported at least two symptoms in the questionnaire (n = 117) and 51 randomly selected individuals with 0-1 symptom participated in further examinations.
- The difference in prevalence between men (4.6%) and women (2.9%) was not significant (p = 0.24).
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Digital health →
Study details
- Participants117
- Effect size67.3%; 3.7%; 8.9%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 53/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / 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 multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 53 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (PloS one) |
| 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 | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 117 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization 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 |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31141553) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 31 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 31 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 53 out of 100. |
| Total | 53 / 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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
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.