Atraumatic Versus Conventional Lumbar Puncture Needles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Lancet. 2018;391:1197–204) Among patients who undergo lumbar puncture, up to 35% return to the hospital with a postdural puncture headache, which is caused by continuing leakage of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the dural defect created by the spinal needle. Conventional needles are most frequently used in clinical practice by nonanesthesiologists and have a sharp slanted tip designed to cut through the dura with a distal opening for injection of drugs or collection of CSF. As these needles cut through tissues, they cause irregular lacerations that can increase the potential for CSF leakage. In contrast, atraumatic needles are blunt with a closed pencil point tip and a side port for drug injection or CSF collection. They separate and dilate dural fibers rather than cutting through the fibers; thus they have been postulated to reduce the incidence of postdural puncture headache because they limit the leakage of CSF after lumbar puncture. Although atraumatic needles are now commonly used by anesthesiologists for spinal anesthesia, they are infrequently used by other clinicians as they seem unaware of their existence. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare atraumatic and conventional lumbar puncture needles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".