ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Management of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in Critically Ill Patients with Lung Diseases.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sugammadex in India: Still on the runway, cleared for take-off, grounded by economic constraints….Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Patient Self-Inflicted Lung Injury in ARDS: From Physiological Concept to Clinical Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Sugammadex for Neuromuscular Blockade Reversal: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Reversal Agents Usage, and Neuromuscular Blockade Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit - Review Article.International journal of general medicine · 2025Review
- Assessing the Optimal Dose of Mivacurium for Modified Rapid Sequence Intubation in Emergency Surgical Settings: A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2024Article
- Adverse Events during Prone Positioning of Patients with COVID-19 during a Surge in Hospitalizations-Results of an Observational Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
The use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) is common in the intensive care unit (ICU). NMBAs have been used in critically ill patients with lung diseases to optimize mechanical ventilation, prevent spontaneous respiratory efforts, reduce the work of breathing and oxygen consumption, and avoid patient-ventilator asynchrony. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), NMBAs reduce the risk of barotrauma and improve oxygenation. Nevertheless, current guidelines and evidence are contrasting regarding the routine use of NMBAs. In status asthmaticus and acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, NMBAs are used in specific conditions to ameliorate patient-ventilator synchronism and oxygenation, although their routine use is controversial. Indeed, the use of NMBAs has decreased over the last decade due to potential adverse effects, such as immobilization, venous thrombosis, patient awareness during paralysis, development of critical illness myopathy, autonomic interactions, ICU-acquired weakness, and residual paralysis after cessation of NMBAs use. The aim of this review is to highlight current knowledge and synthesize the evidence for the effects of NMBAs for critically ill patients with lung diseases, focusing on patient-ventilator asynchrony, ARDS, status asthmaticus, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
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.