Enhancing the quality of evidence, comparability, and reproducibility in ventriculoatrial shunt research for normal pressure hydrocephalus: A systematic review and VAS-NPH reporting guideline

•Systematic Review showed discordant reports for Ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS).•Comparing studies about VAS for Normal Pressure hydrocephalus (NPH) is difficult.•The majority of the 14 studies analyzed did not adopt reporting guidelines.•This study proposes a Reporting guideline checklist to improve VAS-NPH assessment.•The developed checklist can facilitate meta-analytic studies for VAS-NPH. Ventriculoatrial shunt (VAS) is an important treatment option for normal pressure hydrocephalus (NPH). However, clinical studies reporting the use of VAS for NPH lack sufficient standardization for meta-analytic comparisons that could provide robust evidence regarding its use. This study aims to assess the quality of reporting in these studies and develop a reporting guideline checklist to standardize terminology, concepts, and reporting while reinforcing the essential elements to ensure comparability and reproducibility. This is a systematic literature review that followed the PRISMA guidelines with the search in Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases, with no timeframe restriction. The level of evidence of the studies was assessed using the GRADE system, and the rigor used in the publication of the results was assessed concerning adherence to the guidelines indicated by the EQUATOR Network Group. Furthermore, the studies were scrutinized focusing on eight domains: (1) Characteristics of the included studies and baseline characteristics of the patients; (2) Reporting methodology; (3) Pivotal concepts definition; (4) Adverse events assessment; (5) Data writing and reporting; (6) Detailed outcomes reporting; (7) Specific clinical outcomes assessment and reporting; and (8) Complications reporting. A total of 14 studies with 734 patients and 753 shunts were included in this review, and the assessment exposes notable deficiencies in reporting, specifically in baseline patient details, methodology, and outcome assessments. Only two studies followed reporting guidelines, prompting concerns about comprehensive reporting of adverse events and intraoperative complications. Varied reporting completeness existed for shunt-related issues. The absence of standardized definitions for key concepts and insufficient intervention details were observed. A VAS-NPH reporting guideline, encompassing 36 items across eight domains, was developed to address these shortcomings. This systematic review reveals significant deficiencies in methodological rigor and reporting quality. The propo