ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Computer-modified paramedian approach technique reduces failures and alleviates pain in lumbar puncture: a prospective comparative study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The conventional midline approach for lumbar puncture (MAT-LP) has a relatively low success rate of 70%. The paramedian approach can increase the effective puncture area and success rate but lacks standardized guidelines. This study evaluated a computer-modified paramedian approach technique (CMPAT) to optimize lumbar puncture using computational techniques. Methods: In this prospective study, 120 patients underwent CMPAT-LP ( Results: No significant demographic differences existed between groups. Failure rates were 3.3% for CMPAT vs. 13.3% for MAT. Puncture attempts averaged 2.0 vs. 3.5 and pain scores were 2.7 vs. 4.1 for CMPAT and MAT, respectively. All outcomes were significantly improved with CMPAT, especially in elderly patients. No significant difference in complications was observed. Conclusion: Compared to MAT, CMPAT-LP demonstrated lower failure rates, fewer puncture attempts, and less pain, without compromising safety. CMPAT may be superior and should be more widely implemented in clinical 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.