MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415219014 · doi:10.1111/head.15060

The contribution of lumbar puncture opening pressure in the diagnosis of spontaneous intracranial hypotension: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4415219014 on OpenAlexaff
Simy Parikh, Constance R. Deline, Morgan McCreary, Farnaz Amoozegar, Timothy J. Amrhein, Ian Carroll, Jeremy K. Cutsforth‐Gregory, Linda Gray Leithe, Peter G. Kranz, Charles Louy, M. Marcel Maya, Abhay Moghekar, Jill C. Rau, Stephen D. Silberstein, Wouter I. Schievink, Deborah I. Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face Pain · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurosurgical Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLumbar punctureSystematic reviewRaised intracranial pressureIntracranial pressureSystematic errorMEDLINEMedical literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective The objective of this study was to summarize the available evidence regarding the clinical value and trend over time of lumbar cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) opening pressure utilization to diagnose spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH). Background CSF opening pressure obtained via lumbar puncture is one of the diagnostic criteria for SIH based on the International Criteria for Headache Disorders, 3rd Edition (ICHD‐3), but it has questionable utility as an initial investigation for diagnosing SIH. Methods The authors performed a systematic literature review and meta‐analysis. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2022. Original studies and case series in English reporting three or more patients with suspected or known SIH and CSF pressure measurement were included. Meta‐analyses and meta‐regression were used to calculate pooled estimates and examine the impact of age, sex, and publication year on outcomes, including CSF pressure < 60 mm CSF, orthostatic headache, and positive findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spinal imaging, and radionuclide studies. Results For every 1‐year increase in the year of publication, the odds of reporting low CSF pressure decreased by 6.20% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.94, aOR 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.90, 0.97], p = 0.001), the odds of reporting a positive brain MRI increased by 4.67% (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.09], p = 0.026), and the odds of reporting orthostatic headache increased by 9.13% (aOR = 1.09, aOR 95% CI = [1.03, 1.15], p = 0.002). Each 1% increase in the percentage of patients with orthostatic headache was associated with a 3.13% increase in the odds of low CSF pressure (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.05], p = 0.003). Similarly, as the percentage of patients with low CSF pressure increased by 1%, there was a 2.53% increase in the odds of orthostatic headache (aOR = 1.03, aOR 95% CI = [1.01, 1.04], p = 0.005). It was estimated that 31.9% of patients with SIH had normal opening pressure (95% CI = [24.0%, 40.8%], prediction interval = [5.0%, 80.5%]). Every 1% increase in the percentage of patients with positive brain MRI was associated with a 5.25% increase in the odds of positive spinal imaging (aOR = 1.05, aOR 95% CI = [1.00, 1.11], p = 0.047). Age and positive radionuclide study did not significantly impact the outcomes measured. The corresponding I 2 for each outcome was reduced by controlling for study‐wide covariates believed to impact the prevalence of each outcome. Sensitivity analyses did not reveal discrepancies in results when studies requiring outcomes of interest were removed. Conclusion Our analysis found that recent studies indicate a reduced reliance on opening pressure for diagnosing SIH. Rather, results suggest an increasing reliance on contrast‐enhanced brain MRI, spine imaging, and clinical features for SIH diagnosis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeadache The Journal of Head and Face PainSame topicNeurosurgical Procedures and ComplicationsFrench-language works237,207