SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2023
Lumbar puncture position in infants-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prospective study on ultrasonographic measurement of the spinal canal depth in very low birth weight infants.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To analyze the optimal lumbar puncture position in infants. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Infants (age < 1 year). December 2022 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials focusing on lumbar puncture positions were included. Other lumbar puncture position than standard lateral decubitus position. First puncture success and overall success rate. Secondary outcome was desaturation during puncture and procedure-related harms. Risk of bias 2.0 assessment was performed. Outcomes are reported as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We screened 225 abstracts, and six studies were included. Four studies compared sitting position, one study head elevated lateral position, and one study prone position to lateral position. Risk of bias was high in two studies. First puncture success rate in sitting position (RR 1.00, CI: 0.78-1.18; 2 studies) and overall success rate in sitting position were similar to lateral position (RR 0.97, CI: 0.87-1.17; 3 studies). First attempt success rate was higher in elevated lateral position (RR 1.48, CI: 1.14-1.92; 1 study) and in prone position (RR 1.09, CI: 1.00-1.17; 1 study). Conclusion: Sitting position seems to be equally effective in terms of first attempt and overall success in lumbar puncture than standard lateral position. Elevated lateral position and prone positions had better first attempt success than standard lateral position, but these were assessed only in one study each and thus further studies in these positions are needed. Trial registration: This review was registered in PROSPERO. ID: CRD42022382953. What is Known: • Success rate in lumbar puncture has been poor and first attempt success rate has varied between 50 to 80% in literature. • Optimal lumbar puncture positions for infants have been debated between sitting and lateral decubitus position mostly. What is New: • This is the first meta-analysis focused on lumbar puncture positions in infants, and it found that sitting position was equal to standard lateral position. • Prone position and head elevated lateral positions had higher first puncture success rates, but these were assessed both only in one study, which creates uncertainty to the finding.
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.