Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41381103›Full record

ReviewPractical neurology2026

Stenting versus shunting in sight-threatening idiopathic intracranial hypertension: genuine equipoise.

Susan P Mollan, Georgios Tsermoulas, Gabriele Berman, Ahmed K Toma, Robertson Fergus, Phil White, Benjamin R Wakerley, Alexandra J Sinclair

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Practical neurology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susan P MollanMetabolism and Systems Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK s.mollan.1@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6314-4437
Georgios TsermoulasNeurosurgery, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Gabriele BermanBirmingham Neuro-ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-3390-9508
Ahmed K TomaVictor Horsley Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Robertson FergusLysholm Department of Neuroradiology, National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, London, UK.
Phil WhiteNewcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Benjamin R WakerleyMetabolism and Systems Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Alexandra J SinclairMetabolism and Systems Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2777-5132

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This opinion piece discusses the challenges of managing a person with sight-threatening papilloedema due to idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH). With no available randomised controlled trials, clinicians often choose a locally available surgical intervention. An increasing number of studies have advocated using dural venous sinus stenting in IIH. Big data studies show that shunts have been the mainstay of surgical treatment for IIH, and recent evidence shows improved outcomes and fewer revision surgeries. There remains genuine equipoise in the choice of intervention between shunting and dural venous stenting in IIH. The IIH Intervention Trial funded by the National Institute of Health Research is underway in the UK, the first randomised control trial to evaluate both of these surgical interventions in people with sight-threatening IIH.

Indexed as

Cerebrospinal Fluid ShuntsPapilledemaPseudotumor CerebriStentsTherapeutic EquipoiseHumansCSFCSF DYNAMICSNEUROOPHTHALMOLOGYNEURORADIOLOGYNEUROSURGERY

Identifiers

PMID41381103
PMCPMC13018796

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.