ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020
Accuracy of Tuffier's Line Identification by Palpation Method: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study Among Obese, Pregnant and Control Groups.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does preprocedural ultrasound prior to lumbar neuraxial anesthesia or analgesia increase first-pass success in adults with obesity? A systematic review.Health science reports · 2024Review
- Ultrasound versus C-arm fluoroscopic-guided subarachnoid block in patients with predicted difficulty for subarachnoid block posted for infraumbilical surgeries: A prospective randomized controlled study.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePerformance of safe central neuraxial blocks requires identification of accurate vertebral interspace. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of palpation method by confirmation with ultrasound in high-risk groups like obesity and pregnancy.
methodsThis cross-sectional comparative study was conducted after approval from the hospital ethics committee and written informed consent from participants. Participants were enrolled into four groups: normal weight non-pregnant (N), full-term pregnant (P), obese (O) and obese full-term pregnant (PO). Tuffier's line at L4-L5 interspace was determined by palpation method and marked as P-line. Another examiner blinded to the marking done by palpation method confirmed it by ultrasound. The primary endpoint was to determine the accuracy of the palpation method, defined as true identification of Tuffier's line at the L4-L5 interspace by confirming it with ultrasound among four groups. Proportion and percentage were computed and analysed the true identification of Tuffier's line at L4-L5 by chi-square test at 0.008 adjusted level of significance for multiple comparisons.
resultsTuffier's line identification by palpation method was confirmed by ultrasound scanning at L4-L5 interspace in 75.3% (226/300) of participants. Proportion difference of true identification of Tuffier's line at L4-L5 by palpation and ultrasound was statistically significant among the groups (p=0.0005). True identification was significantly lower in group PO [36.4%; p=0.0005<0.008] and group O [34%; p=0.0005<0.008] as compared to that in group N.
conclusionPalpation method was found to be the inaccurate surrogate for the L4-L5 vertebral interspace for obesity with or without pregnancy.
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.