Trial reportFrontiers in endocrinology2021
Continuous Intraoperative Nerve Monitoring in Thyroid Surgery: Can Amplitude Be a Standardized Parameter?
Trial report in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Intraoperative Neuromonitoring Indications in Non-Thyroid and Non-Parathyroid Surgery.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Evaluation of intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) data with the Mainz IONM Quality Assurance and Analysis tool.BJS open · 2023Article
- New Developments in Anterior Laryngeal Recording Technique During Neuromonitored Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate electromyographic waveforms related to vagus monitoring. We collected data from patients undergoing thyroidectomy with CIONM, regardless of vocal cord response amplitude initially measured. We divided data of 193 nerves into three groups, according to initial amplitude value: ≥500 µV (Group 1,110 pt.), between 100 and 500 µV (Group 2, 79 pt.), and <100 µV (Group 3, 4 pt.). ROC curve showed a high diagnostic accuracy of final amplitude absolute value in vocal cord paralysis detection in both groups (89 and 86%). An increase of vocal cord paralysis risk was associated with progressive amplitude reduction (Group 1: OR=1.05, CI=1.02-1.09, p=0.001; Group 2: OR=1.05, CI=1.02-1.08, p=0.002). Cut-off values for amplitude reduction with optimal sensitivity and specificity were -77% in Group 1 and -15% in Group 2. In Group 3 signals showed an amplitude <100 µV for all monitoring, with no loss of a recognizable signal and normal postoperative cordal functionality. The use of a strict amplitude signal cut-off value ≥500 µV could be too restrictive. Also, signal with baseline amplitude <500 µV may be considered equally adequate. Setting the alarm for a reduction of 77% in patients with initial amplitude ≥500 µV and of 15% for those <500 µV could make monitoring safe and an effective aid for surgeons. In conclusion, there are cases in which initial amplitude is lower than that considered as adequate by current literature but with well recognizable and stable EMG waveforms. How those cases should be approached and what should the surgeon's attitude be are a matter of discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.