4.6 Article

Diagnostic accuracy of the iNPH Radscale in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232275

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Region Jamtland Harjedalen
  2. Syskonen Perssons donationsfond
  3. Visare Norr

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose The idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) Radscale was developed to standardize the evaluation of radiological signs in iNPH. The purpose of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the iNPH Radscale in a sample of true positive and true negative cases. Methods Seventy-five patients with definite iNPH, i.e. who had improved at clinical follow-up one year after ventriculoperitoneal shunt surgery, were compared with 55 asymptomatic individuals from the general population. A radiologist assessed the seven radiological features of the iNPH Radscale in computed tomography of the brain in the patients (preoperatively) and controls. Results The iNPH Radscale score was significantly higher in the iNPH group (Median = 10, interquartile range 9-11) than in the control group (Median = 1, interquartile range 1-2) (p < 0.001). Receiver operated characteristics analysis yielded an area under the curve of 99.7%, and an iNPH Radscale score. 4 identified those without iNPH, with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96% and overall accuracy of 98.5%. Conclusions In this study, iNPH Radscale could accurately discriminate between patients with definite iNPH and asymptomatic individuals over 65 years old. According to the results, a diagnosis of iNPH is very likely in patients with an iNPH Radscale score above 8 and corresponding clinical symptoms. On the other hand, the diagnosis should be questioned when the iNPH Radscale score is below the cut-off level of 4. We conclude that the iNPH Radscale could work as a diagnostic screening tool to detect iNPH. Whether the scale also can be used to predict shunt outcome needs further studies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available