Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32944599›Full record

ArticleData in brief2020

Data and meta-analysis for choosing sugammadex or neostigmine for routine reversal of rocuronium block in adult patients.

William E Hurford, Mark H Eckman, Jeffrey A Welge

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Data in brief, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

William E HurfordDepartment of Anesthesiology, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 670531, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Mark H EckmanDepartment of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Jeffrey A WelgeDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States.

Funding

LCenter for Clinical and Translational Science and TrainingUL1TR001425 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI MEINZEN-DERR, JAREEN, STRAWN, JEFFREY ROBERT · 2015 to 2024
$37.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis was conducted to define clinical efficacy and side effects (bradycardia and post-operative nausea and vomiting [PONV]) in trials comparing sugammadex with neostigmine or placebo for reversal of rocuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade in adult patients. A search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library electronic databases identified 111 clinical trials for potential inclusion. We performed a meta-analysis of 32 studies that quantitatively compared the efficacy and side effects of sugammadex with either neostigmine or placebo in adult patients requiring general anesthesia. Analyzed outcomes were reversal time, anesthesia time, duration of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), and the occurrence of bradycardia or PONV. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for binary data. Mean differences and 95% CI were calculated for continuous outcome data. Meta-analyses were performed using random and fixed-effects models. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test and the I

Indexed as

AdultGamma-cyclodextrinsMeta-analysisNeostigmineNeuromuscular blocking agentsSugammadex

Identifiers

PMID32944599
PMCPMC7481821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.