Muller 1994.
Methods |
|
|
Participants | 1. 100 consecutive patients undergoing diagnostic LP were enrolled Exclusion criteria: contraindications against any type of LP Patients randomized to:
2. 10 patients (10%) were excluded from analysis, due to protocol deviations Patients analysed:
3. Main characteristics of patients (only analysed patients):
|
|
Interventions |
|
|
Outcomes | Outcomes were not classified as primary or secondary
|
|
Notes |
|
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias. Quote: "The study was carried out as a prospective randomized blind study on a general neurological ward (..)" (page 376) |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information to score this item as low or high risk of bias |
Blinding of participants (performance bias) | Low risk | Quote: "The LP was carried out by a resident who was asked not to disclose the type of needle to the patient or to the masked examiner." (page 377) |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "All examinations were carried out by an examiner who was unaware of the puncture technique and observations were recorded on standardised check‐lists (…)" (page 377) |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | 10% of patients were lost to follow‐up |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Adverse events, additional to PDPH, were not reported |
Other bias | Low risk | No other biases were identified |