↓ Skip to main content

Fluid Distribution Pattern in Adult-Onset Congenital, Idiopathic, and Secondary Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus: Implications for Clinical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Fluid Distribution Pattern in Adult-Onset Congenital, Idiopathic, and Secondary Normal-Pressure Hydrocephalus: Implications for Clinical Care
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00583
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shigeki Yamada, Masatsune Ishikawa, Kazuo Yamamoto

Abstract

In spite of growing evidence of idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (NPH), a viewpoint about clinical care for idiopathic NPH is still controversial. A continuous divergence of viewpoints might be due to confusing classifications of idiopathic and adult-onset congenital NPH. To elucidate the classification of NPH, we propose that adult-onset congenital NPH should be explicitly distinguished from idiopathic and secondary NPH. On the basis of conventional CT scan or MRI, idiopathic NPH was defined as narrow sulci at the high convexity in concurrent with enlargement of the ventricles, basal cistern and Sylvian fissure, whereas adult-onset congenital NPH was defined as huge ventricles without high-convexity tightness. We compared clinical characteristics and cerebrospinal fluid distribution among 85 patients diagnosed with idiopathic NPH, 17 patients with secondary NPH, and 7 patients with adult-onset congenital NPH. All patients underwent 3-T MRI examinations and tap-tests. The volumes of ventricles and subarachnoid spaces were measured using a 3D workstation based on T2-weighted 3D sequences. The mean intracranial volume for the patients with adult-onset congenital NPH was almost 100 mL larger than the volumes for patients with idiopathic and secondary NPH. Compared with the patients with idiopathic or secondary NPH, patients with adult-onset congenital NPH exhibited larger ventricles but normal sized subarachnoid spaces. The mean volume ratio of the high-convexity subarachnoid space was significantly less in idiopathic NPH than in adult-onset congenital NPH, whereas the mean volume ratio of the basal cistern and Sylvian fissure in idiopathic NPH was >2 times larger than that in adult-onset congenital NPH. The symptoms of gait disturbance, cognitive impairment, and urinary incontinence in patients with adult-onset congenital NPH tended to progress more slowly compared to their progress in patients with idiopathic NPH. Cerebrospinal fluid distributions and disease progression were significantly different among the patients with adult-onset congenital NPH, idiopathic NPH and secondary NPH. This finding indicates that the pathogenesis of adult-onset congenital NPH may differ from those of idiopathic and secondary NPH. Therefore, adult-onset congenital NPH should be definitively distinguished from the categories of idiopathic and secondary NPH.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Neuroscience 5 14%
Engineering 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 November 2017.
All research outputs
#17,919,066
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,149
of 11,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,481
of 329,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#113
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.