↓ Skip to main content

Needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Needle gauge and tip designs for preventing post-dural puncture headache (PDPH)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010807.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Luis Muñoz, Natalia Godoy-Casasbuenas, Agustín Ciapponi, Jimmy J Arevalo, Sabine Boogaard, Marta Roqué i Figuls

Abstract

Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is one of the most common complications of diagnostic and therapeutic lumbar punctures. PDPH is defined as any headache occurring after a lumbar puncture that worsens within 15 minutes of sitting or standing and is relieved within 15 minutes of the patient lying down. Researchers have suggested many types of interventions to help prevent PDPH. It has been suggested that aspects such as needle tip and gauge can be modified to decrease the incidence of PDPH. To assess the effects of needle tip design (traumatic versus atraumatic) and diameter (gauge) on the prevention of PDPH in participants who have undergone dural puncture for diagnostic or therapeutic causes. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and LILACS, as well as trial registries via the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal in September 2016. We adopted the MEDLINE strategy for searching the other databases. The search terms we used were a combination of thesaurus-based and free-text terms for both interventions (lumbar puncture in neurological, anaesthesia or myelography settings) and headache. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in any clinical/research setting where dural puncture had been used in participants of all ages and both genders, which compared different tip designs or diameters for prevention of PDPH DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included 70 studies in the review; 66 studies with 17,067 participants were included in the quantitative analysis. An additional 18 studies are awaiting classification and 12 are ongoing. Fifteen of the 18 studies awaiting classification mainly correspond to congress summaries published before 2010, in which the available information does not allow the complete evaluation of all their risks of bias and characteristics. Our main outcome was prevention of PDPH, but we also assessed the onset of severe PDPH, headache in general and adverse events. The quality of evidence was moderate for most of the outcomes mainly due to risk of bias issues. For the analysis, we undertook three main comparisons: 1) traumatic needles versus atraumatic needles; 2) larger gauge traumatic needles versus smaller gauge traumatic needles; and 3) larger gauge atraumatic needles versus smaller gauge atraumatic needles. For each main comparison, if data were available, we performed a subgroup analysis evaluating lumbar puncture indication, age and posture.For the first comparison, the use of traumatic needles showed a higher risk of onset of PDPH compared to atraumatic needles (36 studies, 9378 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72 to 2.67, I(2) = 9%).In the second comparison of traumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH, with the exception of one study comparing 26 and 27 gauge needles (one study, 658 participants, RR 6.47, 95% CI 2.55 to 16.43).In the third comparison of atraumatic needles, studies comparing various sizes of large and small gauges showed no significant difference in effects in terms of risk of PDPH.We observed no significant difference in the risk of paraesthesia, backache, severe PDPH and any headache between traumatic and atraumatic needles. Sensitivity analyses of PDPH results between traumatic and atraumatic needles omitting high risk of bias studies showed similar results regarding the benefit of atraumatic needles in the prevention of PDPH (three studies, RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.26 to 6.15; I(2) = 51%). There is moderate-quality evidence that atraumatic needles reduce the risk of post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) without increasing adverse events such as paraesthesia or backache. The studies did not report very clearly on aspects related to randomization, such as random sequence generation and allocation concealment, making it difficult to interpret the risk of bias in the included studies. The moderate quality of the evidence for traumatic versus atraumatic needles suggests that further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 200 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 16%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 42 21%
Unknown 40 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 10%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 6 3%
Neuroscience 5 2%
Other 17 8%
Unknown 47 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,415,206
of 15,140,498 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,830
of 11,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,366
of 266,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,140,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.