ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2024
Evolution of a laboratory mechanomyograph.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mechanomyography is currently the accepted laboratory reference standard for quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring. Mechanomyographs are not commercially available. Previously, a mechanomyograph was built by our laboratory and used in several clinical studies. It was subsequently redesigned to improve its usability and functionality and to accommodate a wider range of hand sizes and shapes using an iterative design process. Each version of the redesigned device was initially tested for usability and functionality in the lab with the investigators as subjects without electrical stimulation. The redesigned devices were then assessed on patients undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia without neuromuscular blocking drugs. Since the patients were not paralyzed, the expected train-of-four ratio was 1.0. The device accuracy and precision were represented by the train-of-four ratio mean and standard deviation. If issues with the device's useability or functionality were discovered, changes were made, and the redesign processes repeated. The final mechanomyograph design was used to collect 2,362 train-of-four ratios from 21 patients. The mean and standard deviation of the train-of-four ratios were 0.99 ± 0.030. Additionally, the final mechanomyograph design was easier to use and adjust than the original design and fit a wider range of hand sizes. The final design also reduced the frequency of adjustments and the time needed for adjustments, facilitating data collection during a surgical procedure.
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.