ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017
Assessment of Residents Readiness to Perform Lumbar Puncture: A Validation Study.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiological diagnosis and mortality of tuberculosis meningitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Optimizing Residents' Performance of Lumbar Puncture: An RCT Comparing the Effect of Preparatory Interventions on Performance and Self-Confidence.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Trial
- Article
- Training and assessment of skills in neuraxial space access: a scoping review of educational approaches to lumbar puncture, epidural anaesthesia, and spinal anaesthesia.British journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
- Should Anaesthesiologists Be Taught to Perform Ultrasound-Assisted Neuraxial Access in Spinal Anaesthesia?-Protocol of a Randomised Controlled Study.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
- Using a novel virtual-reality simulator to assess performance in lumbar puncture: a validation study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- A mixed-reality stimulator for lumbar puncture training: a pilot study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Performance Assessment Checklist Scale for Vaccine Administration.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
- Ponseti Clubfoot Casting: Factors That Affect Trainee Competency (Retrospective Observational Study).Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2022Observational
- State-of-the-art of lumbar puncture and its place in the journey of patients with Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2022Review
- Validity evidence of a task trainer for normal and difficult lumbar puncture: A cross-sectional study.Medicine · 2020Article
- Medical students' attitudes toward lumbar puncture-And how to change.Brain and behavior · 2019Article
- A Curriculum for Lumbar Puncture Training in Internal Medicine Residency.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2019Article
- Going Beyond the Checklist with Hybrid Simulation.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Simulator-Based Training Sustainably Improves Confidence, Theoretical Knowledge, and Success Rates in Lumbar Puncture Among Medical Students: A Prospective Case-Control Study.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLumbar puncture is a common procedure in many specialties. The procedure serves to diagnose life-threatening conditions, often requiring rapid performance. However, junior doctors possess uncertainties regarding performing the procedure and frequently perform below expectations. Hence, proper training and assessment of performance is crucial before entering clinical practice.
objectiveTo develop and collect validity evidence for an assessment tool for lumbar puncture performance, including a standard to determine when trainees are ready for clinical practice.
designDevelopment of a new tool, based on clinician interviews and a literature review, was followed by an explorative study to gather validity evidence. PARTICIPANTS AND MAIN MEASURES: We interviewed 12 clinicians from different specialties. The assessment tool was used to assess 11 doctors at the advanced beginners' level and 18 novices performing the procedure in a simulated, ward-like setting with a standardized patient. Procedural performance was assessed by three content experts. We used generalizability theory to explore reliability. The discriminative ability of the tool was explored by comparing performance scores between the two groups. The contrasting groups method was used to set a pass/fail standard and the consequences of this was explored. KEY
resultsThe interviews identified that in addition to the technical aspects of the procedure, non-technical elements involving planning and conducting the procedure are important. Cronbach's alpha = 0.92, Generalizability-coefficient was 0.88 and a Decision-study found one rater was sufficient for low-stakes assessments (G-coefficient 0.71). The discriminative ability was confirmed by a significant difference between the mean scores of novices, 40.9 (SD 6.1) and of advanced beginners, 47.8 (SD 4.0), p = 0.004. A standard of 44.0 was established which was consistent with the raters' global judgments of pass/fail.
conclusionWe developed and demonstrated strong validity evidence for the lumbar puncture assessment tool. The tool can be used to assess readiness for practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.