Ultrasound-Assisted Lumbar Puncture in a Neuromuscular Clinic has a High Success Rate and Less Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lumbar puncture (LP) performed with the assistance of ultrasound (US) may improve success rate, with fewer puncture attempts and less pain. OBJECTIVES: To explore the utility of US-assisted LP in a neuromuscular clinic. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, open-label study between May 2016 and January 2017. The primary outcome measure was LP success rate, and the secondary outcome measures included procedure time, number of attempts, and the levels of pain, anxiety, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Lumbar puncture was performed in 40 consecutive patients. Ultrasound-assisted LP had a 100% success rate, compared with 85% (95% confidence interval: 58%-96%) without US assistance, although this difference failed to reach statistical significance. Ultrasound-assisted LP was associated with less pain and, also in patients >60 years of age, with fewer needle insertions. Both groups reported high satisfaction rates, regardless of the use of US. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-assisted LP has a high success rate and less pain than unassisted LP, and can be accomplished easily in the outpatient neuromuscular clinic setting equipped with US.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".