MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975515481 · doi:10.1111/pan.12355

Accuracy of manual palpation vs ultrasound for identifying the <scp>L</scp><sub>3</sub>–<scp>L</scp><sub>4</sub> intervertebral space level in children

2014· article· en· W1975515481 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Hayes, Bruno C. R. Borges, Derek Armstrong, Ilavajady Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Anesthesia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePalpationPercentileFluoroscopyEpidural spaceUltrasoundLumbarSpondylolysisRadiologySurgeryNuclear medicineSpondylolisthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Insertion of needles into the spinal or epidural space is an important component of modern anesthetic practice. Needles are usually inserted at or below the L3-L4 intervertebral space to minimize the risk of spinal cord injury. Manual palpation is the most common method for identifying intervertebral spaces. However, anesthesiologists are increasingly using ultrasonography to guide the placement of regional, including neuraxial, anesthetic, and analgesic blocks. We undertook an observational study to compare the accuracy of manual palpation and ultrasound for determining the L3-L4 intervertebral space level. METHODS: Thirty children 0-12 years of age undergoing lumbar puncture were enrolled. For each subject, an anesthesiologist, using the landmark palpation method, determined the point on a radio-opaque ruler that corresponded to the L3-L4 intervertebral space. A different anesthesiologist using the ultrasound method repeated this measurement. Fluoroscopy was then used to confirm the accuracy of each technique. The proportion of inaccurate measurements and the effects of anesthesiologists' experience, patient age, and size on the accuracy of each technique were compared. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of measurements by the landmark palpation method were inaccurate by ≥1 levels cephalad to the L3-L4 intervertebral space. However, less experienced anesthesiologists (residents and fellows) made a disproportionate number of inaccurate measurements compared to consultants. Twenty-three percent of measurements by the ultrasound method were inaccurate by ≥1 cephalad levels. The BMI-for-age percentile/weight-for-length percentile was higher in patients in whom either technique was inaccurate. CONCLUSION: This observational study found no difference in the accuracy of landmark palpation, when performed by a consultant anesthesiologist, and ultrasound for determining the L3-L4 intervertebral space in children.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric AnesthesiaSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207