ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2026
The relative cost-effectiveness of atraumatic needles compared to conventional needles in diagnostic lumbar punctures.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical evidence indicates that atraumatic needles (ATNs) versus conventional needles (CNs) reduce diagnostic lumbar puncture (DLP) complications. Despite this, the use of CNs in DLP remains widespread. This analysis estimates the cost-effectiveness of ATNs versus CNs in DLP.
methodsWe constructed a model mapping DLP patient pathways and complications (limited to PDPH events and PDPH-related hospitalisations/epidural blood patches (EBP)). Model development was carried out in consultation with local clinical experts. Published data informed clinical data inputs (DLP characteristics and likelihood of PDPH) and resource estimates. Costs of PDPH management were estimated from UK NHS Reference Costs. Costs of LP were limited to needle costs. Model outputs included total PDPH, total costs, cost per PDPH avoided and numbers need to treat (NNT) to avoid one case of PDPH. Extensive one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsBased on 100 patients undergoing DLP with CN (ATN), we estimated 31 (12) cases of PDPH with 7 (3) patients requiring EBP with total costs estimated at £9,469 (£4,257) i.e. 19 fewer cases of PDPH with ATN at a cost saving of £5,212. NNT to avoid one case of PDPH (hospitalised PDPH) was estimated at 5 (13). Clinical benefits and cost savings were robust to plausible input changes. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionOur model findings support an economic case for use of ATN in preference to CN in DLP, with improved outcomes achieved at a cost saving. Local data collection is recommended but is not expected to change the model findings.
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.