Responses

Download PDFPDF
Atraumatic lumbar puncture needles are associated with fewer complications than conventional needles
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    A more careful interpretation of meta-regression is required

    I read with interest Dr Rao's commentary on Nath et al.,'s meta-analysis of trials of atraumatic and traditional lumbar puncture needles. This is a high quality paper which complies with PRISMA guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and provides strong evidence for the use of atraumatic needles to reduce the incidence of postdural post puncture headache (PDPH).

    However, Dr Rao is incorrect to state that the subgroup analysis of patients <18 years showed a significant difference in PDPH in this population. In fact the opposite is true as the p-value is >0.05 and the confidence interval for the RR spans 1. Instead Nath et al., show that having pre-specified age as a potential interactor/confounder there is no significant difference in the risk of PDPH for <18yr vs >18yr.

    This is a subtle, but important distinction. First because it is possible the meta-regression was not adequately powered to detect a difference if one is present (a false negative). Second because age is a continous variable and so dichotomising in this way reduces statistical power to detect differences at different ages (e.g. there is a benefit in older children but not in younger children).

    A more accurate interpretation of the study is that it shows that overall atraumatic lumbar puncture needles have lower risk of PDPH and that there is no evidence that this is not the case for patients under 18.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.