ArticlePloS one2019
Specific lumbar puncture training during clinical clerkship durably increases atraumatic needle use.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The relative cost-effectiveness of atraumatic needles compared to conventional needles in diagnostic lumbar punctures.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtraumatic needles are proposed to lower complication rates after lumbar puncture (LP). Only a minority of physicians use such needles. Here we aimed to assess the impact of specific training in LP during clinical clerkship on the proportion of medical students using atraumatic needles.
methodsWe performed a case-control study comparing medical students undergoing clinical clerkship and students undergoing specific LP training. The 176 students of a class underwent training in LP just before beginning their clinical rotations. This training consisted of 45 minutes of theoretical training and a 90-minute practical session with a dummy. Twenty students were selected from the class at random, and their competence was assessed with a multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) and an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE), nine months after the specific training. These 20 cases were compared with 20 students randomly selected from a class of 180 students who had not undergone specific training in LP and were at the end of their clinical clerkship.
resultsWe found that 60% of the students with specific training and 25% of those with classic clinical training used an atraumatic needle during the OSCE (p = 0.025). The mean MCQ (/100) scores obtained were 57±15 and 60±15 for the specific and classic training groups, respectively (p = 0.35). Overall OSCE score was similar in the two groups (63.5±9.3 vs. 65.8±9.3; p = 0.20).
conclusionVery few practicing physicians use atraumatic needles, which limits the teaching of their use to medical students. Specific training durably increases the use of appropriate needles.
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.