MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114992744 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxaf116.029

29 To cradle or not to cradle: Can the use of a lumbar puncture cradle increase lumbar puncture success rates?

2025· article· en· W7114992744 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChild Abuse and Related Trauma
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLumbar punctureSittingLogistic regressionRetrospective cohort studyCohortCerebrospinal fluid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Lumbar puncture (LP) has low published success rates, ranging between 50-80% in the neonatal and infant population, while traumatic taps are reported in 30-50%. Proper immobilization and utilizing the sitting position have been shown to improve success rates. The use of a novel LP cradle to standardize seated positioning and obviate immobilization variability may reduce the likelihood of repeated attempts and traumatic LPs. Objectives To determine the first-pass success rate of LPs using the cradle compared to a control group in lateral decubitus. First-pass success is defined as obtention of cerebrospinal fluid with red blood cell (RBC) count <10,000 cells/µL on first attempt. Secondary objectives were to compare overall LP success rate for >1 attempt, and traumatic LP rate (>400 RBCs/µL) with and without the cradle. Design/Methods This was a single center retrospective cohort study from August 2020 to October 2024. Term and corrected preterm infants aged ≥ 37 weeks and ≤ 3 months, presenting to the emergency, and requiring an LP were identified through an EPIC report. Unstable infants, those requiring opening pressure and charts lacking an LP procedure note were excluded. Cases using the SMöLTAP LP cradle were identified first, and concurrent controls were randomly selected. A sample size of 71 per group was calculated to detect a 20% absolute increase in first-pass success rate with 80% power and a 5% two-sided alpha. All outcomes were analyzed using chi-squared tests. Logistic regression was used to control for age, weight, prematurity, acuity, physician experience, use of local anesthetics, and day/night shift. Results 142 infants (71 per group) were included. Mean age was 26 days (SD 20), and 57% were male. Overall, first-pass success rate in our sample was 74/142 (52%). Use of the cradle resulted in a higher first-pass success rate χ2 (1, 142) = 7.22, p=0.007, and fewer traumatic taps χ2 (1, 118) = 8.17, p=0.005. There was no difference in overall success rate, 57/71 (80%) compared to 50/71 (70%), p=0.173. Cradle use remained significantly associated with first-pass success after adjusting for age, weight, prematurity, acuity, physician experience, use of local anesthetic, or day/night shift (OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.06-4.70, p=0.036). Conclusion An LP cradle is a promising tool for improving first-pass success of LPs and decreasing traumatic tap rates. A larger prospective study is warranted to evaluate its effectiveness and potential impact on clinical practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicChild Abuse and Related TraumaFrench-language works237,207