Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparison of onset of neuromuscular blockade with electromyographic and acceleromyographic monitoring: a prospective clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05120999 (Comparison of Onset of Neuromuscular Blockade With Electromyographic and Acceleromyographic Monitoring), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Onset of Neuromuscular Blockade With Electromyographic and Acceleromyographic Monitoring: A Prospective, Randomized Trial
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of adductor pollicis and flexor hallucis brevis muscle electromyographic responses: a prospective cohort study.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025Article
- Observational Cohort Study of TetraGraphJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of supramaximal currents obtained by acceleromyography and electromyography for monitoring the adductor pollicis muscle in pediatric patients.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable devices that quantitatively monitor the level of neuromuscular blockade after neuromuscular blocking agents' administration are crucial. Electromyography and acceleromyography are two monitoring modalities commonly used in clinical practice. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the onset of neuromuscular blockade, defined as a Train-Of-Four Count (TOFC) equal to 0, as measured by an electromyography-based device (TetraGraph) and an acceleromyography-based device (TOFscan). The secondary outcome was to compare intubating conditions when one of these two devices reached a TOFC equal to 0.
methodsOne hundred adult patients scheduled for elective surgery requiring neuromuscular blockade were enrolled. Prior to induction of anesthesia, TetraGraph electrodes were placed over the forearm of patients' dominant/non-dominant hand based on randomization and TOFscan electrodes placed on the contralateral forearm. Intraoperative neuromuscular blocking agent dose was standardized to 0.5 mg.kg
resultsBaseline TetraGraph train-of-four ratios were higher than those obtained with TOFscan (Median: 1.02 [0.88, 1.20] vs. 1.00 [0.64, 1.01], respectively, p < 0.001). The time to reach a TOFC = 0 was significantly longer when measured with TetraGraph compared to TOFscan (Median: 160 [40, 900] vs. 120 [60, 300] seconds, respectively, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in intubating conditions when either device was used to determine the timing of endotracheal intubation.
conclusionsThe onset of neuromuscular blockade was longer when measured with TetraGraph than TOFscan, and a train-of-four count of zero in either device was a useful indicator for adequate intubating conditions. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY: URL NCT05120999, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05120999.
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.