Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38149666›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2023

Techniques to increase lumbar puncture success in newborn babies: the NeoCLEAR RCT.

Charles C Roehr, Andrew Sj Marshall, Alexandra Scrivens, Manish Sadarangani, Rachel Williams, Jean Yong, Louise Linsell, Virginia Chiocchia, Jennifer L Bell, Caz Stokes and 9 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical TrialRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Procedural Case: Neonatal Lumbar Puncture.Journal of education & teaching in emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Charles C RoehrDepartment of Paediatrics, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7965-4637
Andrew Sj MarshallDepartment of Paediatrics, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0529-0425
Alexandra ScrivensNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3429-8007
Manish SadaranganiVaccine Evaluation Center, BC Children's Hospital Research Institute, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9985-6452
Rachel WilliamsNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5872-1690
Jean YongNewborn Care Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7436-6644
Louise LinsellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-6511
Virginia ChiocchiaNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6196-3308
Jennifer L BellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9571-0715
Caz StokesSupport for the Sick Newborn And their Parents (SSNAP) Charity, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4945-2895
Patricia SanthanadassSupport for the Sick Newborn And their Parents (SSNAP) Charity, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4464-7311
Ian NicollNewborn Care Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2778-0660
Eleri AdamsNewborn Care Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7034-1287
Andrew KingNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7175-2718
David MurrayNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9010-2905
Ursula BowlerNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0100-0155
Kayleigh StanburyNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8726-2411
Edmund JuszczakNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-2247
NeoCLEAR Collaborative Group
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Lumbar puncture is an essential tool for diagnosing meningitis. Neonatal lumbar puncture, although frequently performed, has low success rates (50-60%). Standard technique includes lying infants on their side and removing the stylet 'late', that is, after the needle is thought to have entered the cerebrospinal fluid. Modifications to this technique include holding infants in the sitting position and removing the stylet 'early', that is, following transection of the skin. To the best of our knowledge, modified techniques have not previously been tested in adequately powered trials. Objectives: The aim of the Neonatal Champagne Lumbar punctures Every time - An RCT (NeoCLEAR) trial was to compare two modifications to standard lumbar puncture technique, that is, use of the lying position rather than the sitting position and of 'early' rather than 'late' stylet removal, in terms of success rates and short-term clinical, resource and safety outcomes. Methods: This was a multicentre 2 × 2 factorial pragmatic non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Infants requiring lumbar puncture (with a working weight ≥ 1000 g and corrected gestational age from 27 Results: Of 1082 infants randomised (sitting with early stylet removal, Limitations: This trial predominantly recruited term-born infants who were < 3 days old, with working weights > 2.5 kg. The impact of practitioners' seniority and previous experience of different lumbar puncture techniques was not investigated. Limited data on resource use were captured, and parent/practitioner preferences were not assessed. Conclusion: Lumbar puncture success rate was higher with infants in the sitting position but was not affected by timing of stylet removal. Lumbar puncture is a safe, well-tolerated and simple technique without additional cost, and is easily learned and applied. The results support a paradigm shift towards sitting technique as the standard position for neonatal lumbar puncture, especially for term-born infants during the first 3 days of life. Future work: The superiority of the sitting lumbar puncture technique should be tested in larger populations of premature infants, in those aged > 3 days and outside neonatal care settings. The effect of operators' previous practice and the impact on family experience also require further investigation, alongside in-depth analyses of healthcare resource utilisation. Future studies should also investigate other factors affecting lumbar puncture success, including further modifications to standard technique. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14040914 and as Integrated Research Application System registration 223737. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/188/106) and is published in full in

Indexed as

Infant, PrematureSpinal PunctureHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntentionTechnology Assessment, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID38149666
PMCPMC11017152
OpenAlexW4390276730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.