ArticleBMJ open2024
Computerised modified paramedian approach technique versus conventional midline approach technique of lumbar puncture: a randomised control trial protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe lumbar puncture (LP) technique is widely used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. In recent years, the paramedian approach technique (PAT) has gained increasing interest due to its advantages over the conventional midline approach technique (MAT) that has been traditionally employed in clinical practice for LP. However, there have been inconsistent discussions regarding the efficacy of different LP techniques. Based on digital virtual human and computer simulation techniques, a new approach called computerised modified PAT (CMPAT) was proposed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to discuss a randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol to investigate and compare the effects of CMPAT and MAT in patients undergoing LP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a prospective, multicentre RCT. The study will recruit 84 patients aged 18-99 years who require LP. Participants will be randomly assigned to either the CMPAT treatment group (group A) or the MAT treatment group (group B). The primary outcome measure will be the number of needle insertion attempts required for a successful LP. Secondary outcomes will include the puncture success rate, pain assessment in the back, head, and legs, and the occurrence of complications. The measurement of these secondary outcomes will be taken during the procedure, as well as at specific time points: 30 min, 6 hours, 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 2 weeks and 4 weeks after the procedure. Pain levels will be assessed using a Numerical Rating Scale. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval (2022YF052-01) has been obtained from the Ethics Committee of Fujian Medical University Union Hospital, Fuzhou, China. The research findings will be published in an international peer-reviewed scientific journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2300067937.
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.