18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Efficacy of ultrasound guidance for lumbar punctures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

      , ,
      Postgraduate Medical Journal
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Ultrasound guidance has been reported to facilitate the performance of lumbar punctures (LPs). However, the use of ultrasound guidance has not yet received consistent conclusions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of ultrasound-guided LPs. PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials comparing ultrasound guidance with traditional palpation for LPs in adults. The primary outcome was risk of failed procedures. A random-effects Mantel-Haenzsel model or random-effects inverse variance model was used to calculate relative risks (RRs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. Twenty-eight trials (N=2813) met the inclusion criteria. Ultrasound-guided LPs were associated with a reduced risk of failed procedures (RR=0.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.85, p=0.005). No significant heterogeneity was detected (I2=27%) among these trials. It further decreased first attempt to failure (RR=0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62, p<0.00001), mean attempts to success (SMD=−0.61, 95% CI −0.80 to −0.43, p=0.00001) and incidences of complications of headache and backache (RR=0.63, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.85, p=0.003). Ultrasound guidance is an effective technique for LPs in adults.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Postgraduate Medical Journal
                Postgrad Med J
                BMJ
                0032-5473
                1469-0756
                December 16 2020
                January 2021
                January 2021
                November 04 2020
                : 97
                : 1143
                : 40-47
                Article
                10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138238
                fb77c158-22f6-4bd7-a1bb-37820bda429d
                © 2020

                Free to read

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article