Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39118951›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2024

Eliminating residual neuromuscular blockade: a literature review.

Mogen Frenkel, Cynthia A Lien

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The Use of Cisatracurium in Cardiac Surgery.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2025
    Article
  3. Age-Specific Pharmacology of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents: A Comprehensive Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mogen FrenkelDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Cynthia A LienDepartment of Anesthesiology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objective: Although millions of patients receive neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) each year as part of an anesthetic, residual neuromuscular blockade (NMB) remains a too-frequent occurrence and its adverse consequences continue to negatively impact patient outcomes. The goal of this manuscript is to provide clinicians with the information they need to decrease the incidence of residual NMB. Methods: Published literature was reviewed and incorporated into the narrative as appropriate. Search terms for articles included nondepolarizing NMBAs, residual NMB, monitoring depth of NMB, qualitative monitoring, quantitative monitoring, reversal agents, sugammadex, and anticholinesterases. Key Content and Findings: This review will define what is currently considered adequate recovery of neuromuscular function, discuss and compare the different modalities to determine the depth of NMB, discuss the currently available NMBAs-including their durations of action and dosing, describe the incidence and complications associated with residual NMB, and discuss reversal of nondepolarizing NMB with neostigmine or sugammadex. Nondepolarizing NMBAs are commonly used as part of a general anesthetic. Understanding the pharmacology of the neuromuscular blocking and reversal agent, in combination with quantitative monitoring of depth of NMB is essential to avoid residual paralysis. Conclusions: Quantitative monitoring and dosing of either neostigmine or sugammadex based on the results of monitoring is essential to eliminate residual NMB associated with the use of nondepolarizing NMBAs.

Indexed as

Neuromuscular blockade (NMB)postoperative residual neuromuscular blockadequantitative monitoringreversal of residual neuromuscular blockadesugammadex

Identifiers

PMID39118951
PMCPMC11304418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.