27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      European headache federation guideline on idiopathic intracranial hypertension.

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension (IIH) is characterized by an elevation of intracranial pressure (ICP no identifiable cause. The aetiology remains largely unknown, however observations made in a number of recent clinical studies are increasing the understanding of the disease and now provide the basis for evidence-based treatment strategies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references114

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The International Classification of Headache Disorders: 2nd edition.

          (2004)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Revised diagnostic criteria for the pseudotumor cerebri syndrome in adults and children.

            The pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS) may be primary (idiopathic intracranial hypertension) or arise from an identifiable secondary cause. Characterization of typical neuroimaging abnormalities, clarification of normal opening pressure in children, and features distinguishing the syndrome of intracranial hypertension without papilledema from intracranial hypertension with papilledema have furthered our understanding of this disorder. We propose updated diagnostic criteria for PTCS to incorporate advances and insights into the disorder realized over the past 10 years.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

              To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for obesity. Seventeen electronic databases were searched [MEDLINE; EMBASE; PreMedline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; The Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Systematic Reviews Database, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, DARE, NHS EED and HTA databases; Web of Knowledge Science Citation Index (SCI); Web of Knowledge ISI Proceedings; PsycInfo; CRD databases; BIOSIS; and databases listing ongoing clinical trials] from inception to August 2008. Bibliographies of related papers were assessed and experts were contacted to identify additional published and unpublished references. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text using a standard form. Interventions investigated were open and laparoscopic bariatric surgical procedures in widespread current use compared with one another and with non-surgical interventions. Population comprised adult patients with body mass index (BMI) > or = 30 and young obese people. Main outcomes were at least one of the following after at least 12 months follow-up: measures of weight change; quality of life (QoL); perioperative and postoperative mortality and morbidity; change in obesity-related comorbidities; cost-effectiveness. Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review for comparisons of Surgery versus Surgery were RCTs. For comparisons of Surgery versus Non-surgical procedures eligible studies were RCTs, controlled clinical trials and prospective cohort studies (with a control cohort). Studies eligible for inclusion in the systematic review of cost-effectiveness were full cost-effectiveness analyses, cost-utility analyses, cost-benefit analyses and cost-consequence analyses. One reviewer performed data extraction, which was checked by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers independently applied quality assessment criteria and differences in opinion were resolved at each stage. Studies were synthesised through a narrative review with full tabulation of the results of all included studies. In the economic model the analysis was developed for three patient populations, those with BMI > or = 40; BMI > or = 30 and or = 30 and or = 30 and 40, ICERs were 18,930 pounds at two years and 1397 pounds at 20 years, and for BMI > or = 30 and < 35, ICERs were 60,754 pounds at two years and 12,763 pounds at 20 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses produced ICERs which were generally within the range considered cost-effective, particularly at the long twenty year time horizons, although for the BMI 30-35 group some ICERs were above the acceptable range. Bariatric surgery appears to be a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention for moderately to severely obese people compared with non-surgical interventions. Uncertainties remain and further research is required to provide detailed data on patient QoL; impact of surgeon experience on outcome; late complications leading to reoperation; duration of comorbidity remission; resource use. Good-quality RCTs will provide evidence on bariatric surgery for young people and for adults with class I or class II obesity. New research must report on the resolution and/or development of comorbidities such as Type 2 diabetes and hypertension so that the potential benefits of early intervention can be assessed.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Headache Pain
                The journal of headache and pain
                Springer Nature
                1129-2377
                1129-2369
                Oct 08 2018
                : 19
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Wellcome Foundation Building, Denmark Hill Campus, King's College London, London, SE5 9PJ, UK. jan.hoffmann@kcl.ac.uk.
                [2 ] Birmingham Neuro-Ophthalmology, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK.
                [3 ] Department of Neurology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
                [4 ] Headache Medical Centre, Seilerstaette Linz, Ordensklinikum Linz, Barmherzige Schwestern, Linz, Austria.
                [5 ] Danish Headache Center, Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet-Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark.
                [6 ] Metabolic Neurology, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.
                Article
                10.1186/s10194-018-0919-2
                10.1186/s10194-018-0919-2
                30298346
                fac31cd2-4d60-4cbc-8997-97db85687d9f
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article