A systematic review of the diagnostic utility of simple tests of change after trial removal of cerebrospinal fluid in adults with normal pressure hydrocephalus

Abstract

Objective:

To synthesize the evidence regarding the diagnostic value of simple ancillary tests post cerebrospinal fluid drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Data sources:

MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases; last searched on 12 September 2017.

Review methods:

This review was performed applying the steps of the PRISMA statement. The QUADAS 2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Prospective and retrospective trials were systematically reviewed, and data on diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Meta-analysis (where possible) was performed. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic package was used to calculate pooled estimates of included diagnostic studies.

Results:

Seventeen trials (with 812 subjects in total) were identified for inclusion in the meta-analyses for the 18-meter walk test, video-recorded gait performance, cognitive test, and Timed Up and Go Test. The summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for the 18-meter walk test was 0.83 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) and 0.67 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.95), video-recorded gait performance was 0.85 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.99) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.96), cognitive test was 0.82 (95% CI 0.41–0.99) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.39–0.99), and Timed Up and Go Test was 0.89 (95% CI 0.79–0.95) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.24–0.90), respectively.

Conclusion:

This review highlights the diagnostic value of the 18-meter walk test, video-recorded gait performance, cognitive test, and Timed Up and Go Test in predicting shunt outcomes among adults with normal pressure hydrocephalus.

Keywords

Normal pressure hydrocephalus diagnostic criteria ancillary tests tap test

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Vanneste

Augustijn

Dirven

et al . Shunting normal-pressure hydrocephalus: do the benefits outweigh the risks? A multicenter study and literature review. Neurology 1992; 42: 54–59.

Krauss

Halve

. Normal pressure hydrocephalus: survey on contemporary diagnostic algorithms and therapeutic decision-making in clinical practice. Acta Neurochir 2004; 146: 379–388.

Mocco

Tomey

Komotar

et al . Ventriculoperitoneal shunting of idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus increases midbrain size: a potential mechanism for gait improvement. Neurosurgery 2006; 59: 847–850; discussion 850–851.

The Hydrocephalus Association. Facts and Stats. https://www.hydroassoc.org/about-us/newsroom/facts-and-stats-2/

Hebb

Cusimano

. Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a systematic review of diagnosis and outcome. Neurosurgery 2001; 49: 1166–1184.

Malm

Kristensen

Karlsson

et al . The predictive value of cerebrospinal fluid dynamic tests in patients with the idiopathic adult hydrocephalus syndrome. Arch Neurol 1995; 52: 783–789.

Haan

Thomeer

. Predictive value of temporary external lumbar drainage in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 1988; 22: 388–391.

Marmarou

Bergsneider

Klinge

et al . The value of supplemental prognostic tests for the preoperative assessment of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery 2005; 57: S17–S28; discussion ii–v.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 151: 264–269.

10.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

et al . QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536.

11.

Alqunaee

Galvin

Fahey

. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for subacromial impingement syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 93: 229–236.

12.

Landis

Koch

. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

13.

Schiller

Dendukuri

. HSROC: joint meta-analysis of diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity with or without a gold standard reference test. R package version 2.1.8. 2015. https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/HSROC/

14.

Deeks

Altman

. Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. BMJ 2004; 329: 168–169.

15.

Wikkelso

Andersson

Blomstrand

et al . Normal pressure hydrocephalus. Predictive value of the cerebrospinal fluid tap-test. Acta Neurol Scand 1986; 73: 566–573.

16.

Wikkelso

Hellstrom

Klinge

et al . The European iNPH Multicentre Study on the predictive values of resistance to CSF outflow and the CSF tap test in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2013; 84: 562–568.

17.

Williams

Thomas

de Lateur

et al . Objective assessment of gait in normal-pressure hydrocephalus. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87: 39–45.

18.

Chen

Huang

Liu

et al . Effectiveness of shunting in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus predicted by temporary, controlled-resistance, continuous lumbar drainage: a pilot study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994; 57: 1430–1432.

19.

Sand

Bovim

Grimse

et al . Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: the CSF tap-test may predict the clinical response to shunting. Acta Neurol Scand 1994; 89: 311–316.

20.

Blomsterwall

Bilting

Stephensen

et al . Gait abnormality is not the only motor disturbance in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Scand J Rehabil Med 1995; 27: 205–209.

21.

Damasceno

Carelli

Honorato

et al . The predictive value of cerebrospinal fluid tap-test in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 1997; 55: 179–185.

22.

Krauss

Regel

. The predictive value of ventricular CSF removal in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Res 1997; 19: 357–360.

23.

Kahlon

Sundbarg

Rehncrona

. Comparison between the lumbar infusion and CSF tap tests to predict outcome after shunt surgery in suspected normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002; 73: 721–726.

24.

Walchenbach

Geiger

Thomeer

et al . The value of temporary external lumbar CSF drainage in predicting the outcome of shunting on normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurol Neurosur Psychiatry 2002; 72: 503–506.

25.

Marmarou

Young

Aygok

et al . Diagnosis and management of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus: a prospective study in 151 patients. J Neurosurg 2005; 102: 987–997.

26.

Panagiotopoulos

Konstantinou

Kalogeropoulos

et al . The predictive value of external continuous lumbar drainage, with cerebrospinal fluid outflow controlled by medium pressure valve, in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Acta Neurochir 2005; 147: 953–958.

27.

Ravdin

Katzen

Jackson

et al . Features of gait most responsive to tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008; 110: 455–461.

28.

Tsakanikas

Katzen

Ravdin

et al . Upper extremity motor measures of tap test response in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2009; 111: 752–757.

29.

Ishikawa

Hashimoto

Mori

et al . The value of the cerebrospinal fluid tap test for predicting shunt effectiveness in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Fluids Barriers CNS 2012; 9: 1.

30.

Aoki

Kazui

Tanaka

et al . EEG and neuronal activity topography analysis can predict effectiveness of shunt operation in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus patients. Neuroimage Clin 2013; 3: 522–530.

31.

Mendes

GAS

de Oliveira

Pinto

FCG

. The timed up and go test as a diagnostic criterion in normal pressure hydrocephalus. World Neurosurg 2017; 105: 456–461.

32.

Yamada

Ishikawa

Miyajima

et al . Timed up and go test at tap test and shunt surgery in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Clin Pract 2017; 7: 98–108.

33.

Yang

Hickman

Tinl

et al . Quantitative evaluation of changes in gait after extended cerebrospinal fluid drainage for normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 2016; 28: 31–37.

34.

Mahr

Dengl

Nestler

et al . Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: diagnostic and predictive value of clinical testing, lumbar drainage, and CSF dynamics. J Neurosurg 2016; 125: 591–597.

35.

Kilic

Czorny

Auque

et al . Predicting the outcome of shunt surgery in normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Clin Neurosci 2007; 14: 729–736.

36.

Agostini

Lanotte

Carlone

et al . Instrumented gait analysis for an objective pre-/postassessment of tap test in normal pressure hydrocephalus. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96: 1235–1241.

37.

Chotai

Medel

Herial

et al . External lumbar drain: a pragmatic test for prediction of shunt outcomes in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Surg Neurol Int 2014; 5: 12.

38.

Chivukula

Tempel

Zwagerman

et al . The dynamic gait index in evaluating patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus for cerebrospinal fluid diversion. World Neurosurg 2015; 84: 1871–1876.

39.

Ishikawa

Yamada

Yamamoto

. Early and delayed assessments of quantitative gait measures to improve the tap test as a predictor of shunt effectiveness in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. Fluids Barriers CNS 2016; 13: 20.

40.

Jusue-Torres

Robison

et al . NPH log: validation of a new assessment tool leading to earlier diagnosis of normal pressure hydrocephalus. Cureus 2016; 8: e659.

41.

Nakatsu

Fukuhara

Chaytor

et al . Repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS) as a cognitive evaluation tool for patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus. Neurol Med Chir 2016; 56: 51–61.

42.

Klinge

Brooks

Samii

et al . Correlates of local cerebral blood flow (CBF) in normal pressure hydrocephalus patients before and after shunting—a retrospective analysis of O-15 H2O PET-CBF studies in 65 patients. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2008; 110: 369–375.

43.

Nakayama

Ouchi

Yoshikawa

et al . Striatal D2 receptor availability after shunting in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Nucl Med 2007; 48: 1981–1986.

44.

Vanneste

Augustijn

Tan

et al . Shunting normal pressure hydrocephalus: the predictive value of combined clinical and CT data. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1993; 56: 251–256.

45.

Shapiro

. Issues in combining independent estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test. Acad Radiol 1995; 2: S37–S47.

46.

Ries

Echternach

Nof

et al . Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change scores for the timed “up & go” test, the six-minute walk test, and gait speed in people with Alzheimer disease. Phys Ther 2009; 89: 569–579.

47.

Steffen

Seney

. Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change on balance and ambulation tests, the 36-item short-form health survey, and the unified Parkinson disease rating scale in people with Parkinsonism. Phys Ther 2008; 88: 733–746.

48.

Gupta

Lang

. Potential placebo effect in assessing idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus. J Neurosurg 2011; 114: 1428–1431.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

0.20 MB