ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Assessment of the New Acceleromyograph TOF 3D Compared with the Established TOF Watch SX: Bland-Altman Analysis of the Precision and Limits of Agreement between Both Devices-A Randomized Clinical Comparison.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A single-centre, randomised comparison of the performance and safety of a novel mechanomyography sensor with electromyography.British journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new acceleromyograph TOF 3D was compared with the established TOF Watch SX in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic gynecological surgery. Neuromuscular transmission was assessed by simultaneous recording with both devices. Measurements were performed simultaneously at the left and the right M. adductor pollicis (Group A, 25 patients), or the M. corrugator supercilii (Group CS, 25 patients). The repeatability, time course, and limits of agreement (Bland-Altman) were compared. The primary endpoint was the 90% train-of-four recovery time (TOFR 0.9). Other endpoints included onset time of block, maximum T1 depression, time to 25% T1 recovery, the recovery time course of T1 response, and TOF ratio, respectively. In group CS, the repeatability coefficient of the TOF 3D was lower (4.66 (1.6)) than of the TOF Watch SX (6.02 (1.9);
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.