↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Drug therapy for treating post‐dural puncture headache

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
9 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
90 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
Title
Drug therapy for treating post‐dural puncture headache
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007887.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier Basurto Ona, Dimelza Osorio, Xavier Bonfill Cosp

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 8, 2011, on 'Drug therapy for treating post-dural puncture headache'.Post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) is the most common complication of lumbar puncture, an invasive procedure frequently performed in the emergency room. Numerous pharmaceutical drugs have been proposed to treat PDPH but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness. To assess the effectiveness and safety of drugs for treating PDPH in adults and children. The searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE and MEDLINE in Process (from 1950 to 29 July 2014), EMBASE (from 1980 to 29 July 2014) and CINAHL (from 1982 to July 2014). There were no language restrictions. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any pharmacological drug used for treating PDPH. Outcome measures considered for this review were: PDPH persistence of any severity at follow-up (primary outcome), daily activity limited by headache, conservative supplementary therapeutic option offered, epidural blood patch performed, change in pain severity scores, improvements in pain severity scores, number of days participants stay in hospital, any possible adverse events and missing data. Review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR and MD. We did not undertake meta-analysis because the included studies assessed different sorts of drugs or different outcomes. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. We included 13 small RCTs (479 participants) in this review (at least 274 participants were women, with 118 parturients after a lumbar puncture for regional anaesthesia). In the original version of this Cochrane review, only seven small RCTs (200 participants) were included. Pharmacological drugs assessed were oral and intravenous caffeine, subcutaneous sumatriptan, oral gabapentin, oral pregabalin, oral theophylline, intravenous hydrocortisone, intravenous cosyntropin and intramuscular adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH).Two RCTs reported data for PDPH persistence of any severity at follow-up (primary outcome). Caffeine reduced the number of participants with PDPH at one to two hours when compared to placebo. Treatment with caffeine also decreased the need for a conservative supplementary therapeutic option.Treatment with gabapentin resulted in better visual analogue scale (VAS) scores after one, two, three and four days when compared with placebo and also when compared with ergotamine plus caffeine at two, three and four days. Treatment with hydrocortisone plus conventional treatment showed better VAS scores at six, 24 and 48 hours when compared with conventional treatment alone and also when compared with placebo. Treatment with theophylline showed better VAS scores compared with acetaminophen at two, six and 12 hours and also compared with conservative treatment at eight, 16 and 24 hours. Theophylline also showed a lower mean "sum of pain" when compared with placebo. Sumatriptan and ACTH did not show any relevant effect for this outcome.Theophylline resulted in a higher proportion of participants reporting an improvement in pain scores when compared with conservative treatment.There were no clinically significant drug adverse events.The rest of the outcomes were not reported by the included RCTs or did not show any relevant effect. None of the new included studies have provided additional information to change the conclusions of the last published version of the original Cochrane review. Caffeine has shown effectiveness for treating PDPH, decreasing the proportion of participants with PDPH persistence and those requiring supplementary interventions, when compared with placebo. Gabapentin, hydrocortisone and theophylline have been shown to decrease pain severity scores. Theophylline has also been shown to increase the proportion of participants that report an improvement in pain scores when compared with conventional treatment.There is a lack of conclusive evidence for the other drugs assessed (sumatriptan, adrenocorticotropic hormone, pregabalin and cosyntropin).These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, due to the lack of information to allow correct appraisal of risk of bias, the small sample sizes of the studies and also their limited generalisability, as nearly half of the participants were postpartum women in their 30s.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 364 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 15%
Researcher 43 12%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Other 33 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 6%
Other 74 20%
Unknown 105 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 8%
Psychology 13 4%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Neuroscience 8 2%
Other 34 9%
Unknown 113 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,562,952
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,320
of 13,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,016
of 278,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,149 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 278,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 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 74% of its contemporaries.