ArticleCureus2026
Fluoroscopy-Guided Lumbar Puncture Training: Needs Assessment for Alternative Teaching Methods Including Simulation.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA lumbar puncture (LP) is frequently performed to access the thecal sac for withdrawal of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), most often for diagnostic analysis. Fluoroscopy-guided LP (FGLP) has gained popularity compared to traditional bedside LP, due to increasing patient obesity and associated lower rate of traumatic puncture due to fluoroscopic visualization of the needle. FGLP benefits patients with challenging spine anatomy or postoperative versus degenerative changes. To optimize the learning environment and decrease radiation exposure as well as inexperience-related errors, we conduct a needs assessment regarding current radiology resident FGLP didactics and consideration for alternative teaching methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn anonymous survey was administered to radiology residents at the University of Chicago (UC) and Northwestern University (NU) regarding didactics received prior to the trainee's first clinical FGLP. A total of 27 UC surveys were distributed, while there were 28 total at NU, with response rates of 85% and 71%, respectively. An initial pilot survey was conducted with three UC radiology residents who regularly assist with contrast simulation projects. Participant characteristics were as follows: UC: 34% female and 66% male, with an age range of 26 to 33 and ranging in postgraduate years 2 to 6; NU: 40% female and 60% male, with an age range of 25 to 35 and postgraduate training years 3 to 6. Participants were asked about the level of preparedness for the first and most recent FGLP attempt on a five-point Likert scale. The participants' level of satisfaction with current training methods was assessed to determine the desire for alternative training.
resultsFive percent NU/0% UC survey participants were "extremely satisfied" with the current level of FGLP training, and 30% UC/20% NU students were "slightly satisfied." The majority of trainees (91% UC/80% NU) expressed interest in additional training, including virtual simulation and mannequin training.
conclusionThrough this initial survey, we demonstrate the need for an alternative method for teaching FGLP to radiology trainees, with eagerness to explore further training by virtual methods or mannequin simulation.
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.