4.0 Article

Guidelines for Management of Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Second Edition

Journal

NEUROLOGIA MEDICO-CHIRURGICA
Volume 52, Issue 11, Pages 775-809

Publisher

JAPAN NEUROSURGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.2176/nmc.52.775

Keywords

clinical guideline; idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus; diagnosis; treatment

Funding

  1. Japanese Society of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus
  2. Labour Sciences Research Grant on Measures for Intractable Diseases: Studies on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of normal pressure hydrocephalus
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24591248] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available