Journal of the neurological sciences · 2013
Clinical equipoise in idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus: a survey of physicians on the need for randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of cerebrospinal fluid diversion.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
McGirr Alexander, Mohammed Safraz, Kurlan Roger, Cusimano Michael D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) is a syndrome that may be reversible by diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). It is increasingly recognized, and accordingly rates of CSF diversion are increasing despite the absence of level I evidence of efficacy, non-neglible rate of complications and an unclear natural history.
METHODS: A total of 349 neurosurgeons, neurologists, geriatricians and neuropsychiatrists rated the perceived efficacy of CSF diversion, the duration of effect of CSF diversion, and the risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH. These physicians then rated the need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CSF diversion in iNPH. Participants detailed their desired selection criteria and supportive testing for a RCT, and their preferred control group.
RESULTS: Physicians believe that there is uncertain efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH, as well as the expected duration of this benefit and the risk-benefit ratio for patients. The greatest degree of uncertainty related to the long-term benefit of surgery. Accordingly, over 75% desire a RCT to determine the efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH. Only 2.7% of participants believe a RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is unethical. Patients without a shunt and a programmable valve in the 'off' setting were the preferred control groups.
CONCLUSION: A RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is absent from the literature. The majority (>75%) of physicians involved in the diagnosis and treatment of iNPH believe a RCT is required to determine the efficacy, duration of efficacy and risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH.
METHODS: A total of 349 neurosurgeons, neurologists, geriatricians and neuropsychiatrists rated the perceived efficacy of CSF diversion, the duration of effect of CSF diversion, and the risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH. These physicians then rated the need for a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CSF diversion in iNPH. Participants detailed their desired selection criteria and supportive testing for a RCT, and their preferred control group.
RESULTS: Physicians believe that there is uncertain efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH, as well as the expected duration of this benefit and the risk-benefit ratio for patients. The greatest degree of uncertainty related to the long-term benefit of surgery. Accordingly, over 75% desire a RCT to determine the efficacy of CSF diversion in iNPH. Only 2.7% of participants believe a RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is unethical. Patients without a shunt and a programmable valve in the 'off' setting were the preferred control groups.
CONCLUSION: A RCT of CSF diversion in iNPH is absent from the literature. The majority (>75%) of physicians involved in the diagnosis and treatment of iNPH believe a RCT is required to determine the efficacy, duration of efficacy and risk-benefit ratio of CSF diversion in iNPH.