Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
Open Access
one of the most widely practiced procedures, being per- versions will be made available on PROSPERO, with cat-
formed by various specialists, such as neurologists, neuro- alogued version history.
surgeons, paediatricians, anaesthesiologists, emergency
physicians, radiologists and internists. While the safety Literature search
prole of lumbar puncture has improved drastically since A detailed search will be conducted of the MEDLINE,
its inception in the 1800s, it remains plagued by often EMBASE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, CINAHL,
debilitating patient complications, the most prominent of WHO Clinical Trials Database and Cochrane Library
which is headache. Postlumbar puncture headaches are databases through 5 January 2017, without language or
classically described as postural in nature and frontal publication type restrictions. We will use keywords and
occipital in location. These headaches can severely medical subject heading terms related to needle type
impact patient well-being, often requiring hospitalisation (atraumatic or traumatic) and clinical outcomes. Search
and potentially, invasive therapy.3 strategies will be developed in consultation with a librar-
Headache is postulated to occur as a result of leakage ian with expertise in systematic reviews.12 The search
of cerebrospinal uid (CSF) from the site of the dural strategy employed for the MEDLINE database is pro-
tear created during the puncture. This leakage results in vided in table 1. The search will be supplemented by
a decrease in CSF pressure, causing traction of manually screening the references of relevant articles,
pain-sensitive structures in the cranium. Multiple factors, reviewing the proceedings of pertinent meetings, and
such as needle gauge, needle tip design, patient position contacting clinical experts in the eld.
and operator experience, have been proposed to affect
the incidence of headache following lumbar puncture. Study selection
Of prime importance is the needle tip design. Spinal Three investigators will independently evaluate studies
needles can be broadly characterised as being atrau- for eligibility. Disagreements between the reviewers
matic or traumatic depending on their tip congur- concerning the decision to include or exclude a study
ation.4 Traumatic or conventional needles are the most will be resolved by consensus, and if necessary, con-
commonly used. They feature a bevelled tip, designed to sultation with a fourth reviewer. Our inclusion criteria
puncture through tissue, with an opening at the tip to shall be:
facilitate collection of CSF or injection of therapeutics. Study design: randomised controlled trials (RCTs;
In contrast, atraumatic needles are blunted, with a including cluster RCTs and pilot studies), controlled
pencil-point tip and a side port for injection or collec- (non-randomised) clinical trials, prospective and
tion. Theoretically, atraumatic needles dilate the dural retrospective cohort studies, and abstracts, with no
bres, splaying them during the procedure, and follow- publication type or language restrictions,
ing removal of the needle, allow them to gradually Population: patients of any age group and demo-
return to their original position, in contrast to traumatic graphic undergoing lumbar puncture as a part of
needles, which tear and damage the dural tissue.3 5 their clinical care,
Despite development of atraumatic needles early in Intervention: lumbar puncture with atraumatic
the 20th century, their use in clinical practice and knowl- needle,
edge of their existence among clinicians remains signi- Control: lumbar puncture with traumatic needle,
cantly limited. In fact, as few as 2% of clinicians surveyed Outcomes: clinical outcomes such as incidence of
reported using atraumatic needles.6 This review will aim postdural puncture headache (PDPH; primary
to systematically examine atraumatic needles in compari- outcome), any headache, backache, hearing dis-
son to the traumatic type. This systematic review and turbance, nerve root irritation, traumatic tap, sever-
meta-analysis protocol has been developed in accord- ity of PDPH, duration of PDPH, number of patients
ance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic requiring intravenous uids/controlled analgesics
reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P)7 guide- or blood patch, failure rate, success on the rst
lines and has been registered with the International attempt and number of attempts required to obtain
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CSF.
registration number: CRD42016047546). For studies published more than once, we will include
only the report with the most informative and complete
data. We will exclude studies that did not evaluate atrau-
METHODS matic needles, studies without clinical outcomes such as
We shall conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in vitro studies, review articles, letters, and correspon-
in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for dences or comments (gure 1).
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA),8 9 the
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Data management and collection
(MOOSE) consensus statement10 and the Cochrane Literature search results will be exported from all rele-
Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.11 vant databases as .ris les or .ciw les containing the
This protocol will be amended and updated in conjunc- complete reference. EndNote X7 software will be used
tion with the PRISMA-P guidelines,7 and updated for reference management. Reviewers will develop and
Open Access
Table 1 Search strategy for the MEDLINE electronic database using the Ovid interface
Database Search terms
MEDLINE 1 Spinal puncture/
1946present 2 (Spinal adj2 (puncture* or tap or taps)).mp. (mp=title, abstract, original title, name of substance word,
subject heading word, keyword heading word, protocol supplementary concept word, rare disease
supplementary concept word, unique identifier)
3 Lumbar punctur*.mp.
4 Dural punctur*.mp.
5 Spine punctur*.mp.
6 ((Spine or spinal or lumbar or subarachnoid) adj2 block*).mp.
7 Spinal drain*.mp.
8 Spinal fluid drain*.mp.
9 Cerebrospinal fluid drain*.mp.
10 anesthesia, spinal/
11 Anesthesia, obstetrical/
12 Anesthesia/
13 An?esthe*.mp.
14 Myelography/
15 Myelography.mp.
16 (Spinal epidural adj2 (combined or block* or an?esthes* or technique* or procedure* or method*)).mp.
17 (Continuous spinal adj2 (combined or block* or an?esthes* or technique* or procedure* or method*)).mp.
18 or/117
19 Atraumatic needle*.mp.
20 Sprotte.mp.
21 Whitacre.mp.
22 ((Non cutting or noncutting or noncutting or pencil point* or pencilpoint*) adj3 needle*).mp.
23 Pencan.mp.
24 Gertie marx.mp.
25 Zimmon.mp.
26 Traumatic needle*.mp.
27 Quincke.mp.
28 Cutting needle*.mp.
29 Knife needle*.mp.
30 Standard needle*.mp.
31 Conventional needle*.mp.
32 Greene.mp.
33 (Green adj2 needle*).mp.
34 Spinal needle*.mp.
35 Lumbar puncture needle*.mp.
36 Tuohy.mp.
37 Crawford.mp.
38 Eldor.mp.
39 Hustead.mp.
40 Weiss.mp.
41 Wagner.mp.
42 Cheng.mp.
43 Crawley.mp.
44 Foldes.mp.
45 Bell.mp.
46 Brace.mp.
47 Huber.mp.
48 Scott.mp.
49 Needle through needle.mp.
50 or/1949
51 18 and 50
pilot screening questions and forms based on the eligi- published in English, the full article will be translated
bility criteria. Prior to data abstraction, full articles of all into English. In addition, a medical expert uent in
eligible studies will be retrieved. For studies not the original language of the article will be involved in
Open Access
data management. Three primary reviewers will inde- assess headache; treatment of headache; number of
pendently screen the titles and abstracts obtained by the patients in atraumatic and traumatic groups; age of
search against the predened eligibility criteria. Full patients in atraumatic and traumatic groups; body mass
reports will be obtained for all references that appear to index of patients in atraumatic and traumatic groups;
meet the eligibility criteria, or where there is any ambi- number of patients in atraumatic and traumatic groups
guity. Reviewers will then screen the full text and deter- given prophylactic intravenous uids; number of patients
mine whether these articles meet the eligibility criteria. in atraumatic and traumatic groups instructed bedrest;
Where necessary, we will contact authors of relevant characteristics of headache reported; number of patients
studies to obtain additional information and resolve with postural headache in atraumatic and traumatic
questions about eligibility. Discrepancies will be resolved groups; number of patients with non-postural headache in
by discussion and consensus, and if necessary, consult- atraumatic and traumatic groups; number of patients with
ation with a fourth reviewer. Reasons for excluding postural and non-postural headaches in atraumatic and
studies will be recorded. traumatic groups; severity of headaches in atraumatic and
Data from selected studies will be abstracted independ- traumatic groups; duration of headaches in atraumatic
ently by the three primary reviewers and veried for accur- and traumatic groups; number of patients with backache
acy by the fourth reviewer. We will gather information in atraumatic and traumatic groups; number of patients
from eligible articles using data abstraction forms that treated with epidural blood patch for headaches in atrau-
include elds for: study rst author; year of publication; matic and traumatic groups; success on the rst attempt
journal of publication; language; study design; included with atraumatic and traumatic needles; number of trau-
centres; included countries; number of patients; number matic taps with atraumatic and traumatic needles; failure
of men and women; inpatients or outpatients; recruitment rate of atraumatic and traumatic needles; number of
period; eligibility criteria; method of randomisation; attempts required to obtain CSF with atraumatic and trau-
purpose of lumbar puncture; specialty of clinician per- matic needles; crossovers (atraumatic-to-traumatic and
forming lumbar puncture; patient position; atraumatic traumatic-to-atraumatic); serious complications (eg,
and traumatic needle-specic type; atraumatic and trau- hearing disturbance, nerve root damage, etc); ease of use
matic needle gauge; procedure for follow-up; scale used to of needles as reported by authors.
Open Access
Risk of bias in individual studies backache, hearing disturbance, nerve root irritation,
Three reviewers will independently perform quality assess- traumatic tap, severity of PDPH, number of patients
ment. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool11 will be requiring blood patch, number of patients requiring
used to assess the risk of selection, performance, detec- intravenous uids/controlled analgesics, failure rate and
tion, attrition, reporting and other biases among included success rate on rst attempt, with atraumatic and trau-
randomised trials. If there is insufcient information pro- matic needles, will be analysed by calculating the relative
vided to make a judgement, we will categorise the study as risk (RR) with corresponding 95% CI. For continuous
having an unclear risk of bias and the original study outcomes, such as the number of attempts with atrau-
authors will be contacted for further information. Trials matic and traumatic needles and the duration of PDPH,
with one or more high-risk components will be judged as the weighted mean difference with 95% CI will be calcu-
having an overall high risk of bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa lated. In addition, pooled estimates of all incidences will
Scale13 will be used to assess observational studies on selec- be calculated across all studies for the atraumatic group,
tion, comparability and exposure. Studies that receive at then separately for the traumatic group. Random-effects
least one star in every domain will be categorised as being meta-analyses for all outcomes of interest will be per-
of high quality. Disagreements during quality assessment formed using the DerSimonian and Laird model.15
will be resolved through discussion, consensus and, if Weights will be calculated using the inverse-variance
necessary, consulting a fourth reviewer. method. The number needed to prevent harm (NNPH)
will be calculated using the following equation:11
Definition of outcomes
Our clinical outcomes will include multiple incidences
1
after lumbar puncture. Headaches will be categorised NNPH
into the following groups: PDPH ( primary outcome), ACR 1 RR)
and any headache. PDPH will be dened as headache ful- The threshold of type I error for statistical signicance
lling the International Classication of Headache shall be =0.05. All statistical analyses will be conducted
Disorders (ICHD) III criteria,14 which is described as an using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis V.3.3.070 (Biostat,
orthostatic headache occurring within 5 days of a lumbar Englewood, New Jersey, USA).
puncture, caused by CSF leakage through the dural punc- Between-study heterogeneity will be evaluated using
ture. This headache is usually accompanied by neck stiff- Cochrans Q test and measured by the I2 statistic, with I2
ness as well as subjective hearing symptoms and remits values exceeding 25%, 50% and 75% being judged as
spontaneously within 2 weeks or after sealing of the leak low, moderate and high heterogeneity, respectively.16
with an autologous epidural blood patch. ICHD III diag- Publication bias will be evaluated visually by funnel plot
nostic criteria for PDPH are as follows: (1) headache has analyses and quantied by Begg and Mazumdars17 and
developed in temporal relation to the low CSF pressure Eggers tests.18
or CSF leakage, or led to its discovery; (2) dural puncture Prespecied subgroup analyses will be conducted to
has been performed; (3) headache has developed within examine if covariates exist and to explore potential
5 days of dural puncture; (4) headache is not better heterogeneity for the primary outcome (PDPH). We
accounted for by another ICHD-III diagnosis.14 The plan to examine subgroups stratied by age, gender,
outcome of any headache will encompass PDPH and all patient position during puncture, needle gauge,
headaches not fullling the previously discussed criteria. quality of studies, prophylactic use of intravenous
Furthermore, we will classify PDPH based on intensity uids, postpuncture prophylactic bedrest, purpose of
using the visual analogue scale (VAS) as follows: mild lumbar puncture, continent of publication, older
(VAS 13; responds to over-the-counter analgesics and versus newer studies and specialty of physician per-
bedrest), moderate (VAS 47; requires controlled or forming lumbar puncture.
intravenous analgesics, or intravenous caffeine) and We will conduct sensitivity analyses to examine
severe (VAS 810; requires epidural blood patch). We will whether differently manufactured atraumatic or trau-
also evaluate the duration of PDPH, incidence of back- matic needles inuence the incidence of the primary
ache, need for intravenous uids/controlled analgesics outcome (PDPH). In addition, we will perform trial
or epidural blood patch, success rate on the rst attempt, sequential analyses and calculate adjusted RR
number of traumatic taps ( presence of blood in CSF on values.19 20 Quality of evidence will be assessed using the
visual inspection), failure rate of needles, number of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development
attempts required to obtain CSF, incidence of hearing dis- and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.21 Evidence for all
turbance and incidence of nerve root irritation. outcomes will be judged for the domains of risk of bias,
consistency, precision, reporting bias and directness.
Data synthesis Evidence will be ranked as being of high quality
We will compare all outcomes for atraumatic versus trau- (further research is very unlikely to change condence
matic needles across randomised trials using the in the effect size), moderate quality (further research is
intention-to-treat principle. Dichotomous outcomes, likely to have an important impact on condence in the
including the incidence of PDPH, any headache, effect size/may change the effect size), low quality
Open Access
These include:
References This article cites 18 articles, 7 of which you can access for free at:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/3/e014478#BIBL
Open Access This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative
Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which
permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work
non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms,
provided the original work is properly cited and the use is
non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
service box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes