ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2025
Improving quantitative neuromuscular monitoring: an education initiative on stimulating electrode placement.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paired assessment of two electromyographic neuromuscular monitors: stimpod NMX450X versus Datex-Ohmeda E-NMT.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2026Article
- From revival to routine: electromyography-based neuromuscular monitoring in contemporary anesthesia practice.Anesthesia and pain medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring reduces the incidence of residual neuromuscular block, but broad acceptance of monitoring has been elusive despite recommendations for quantitative monitoring for decades. Acceptance of quantitative monitoring may, in part, be related to the quality of the data from monitoring systems. This evaluation explored proper stimulating electrode positioning for electromyographic (EMG) monitoring, the impact of an educational intervention on electrode positioning and anesthesia provider (anesthesiologist, resident, anesthetist) confidence in the monitoring data from the device. In a single-center, observations of EMG electrode placement by anesthesia technicians, in 55 adult elective surgery patients were made by an independent observer. Separately, the anesthesia provider satisfaction with EMG derived data was recorded after reversal of neuromuscular block. An educational intervention then occurred on proper electrode positioning, including prior observations of electrode positioning, and prior anesthesia provider satisfaction with the EMG derived data. After the intervention, stimulating electrode position was observed with an additional 60 patients and anesthesia provider satisfaction with the data was again ascertained. The educational intervention significantly increased the proportion of ideal ulnar nerve groove electrode positioning from 74.5% to 95% (P < 0.003) and ideal wrist crease positioning (distal electrode within 2 cm of crease) from 61.8% to 96.7% (P < 0.001). Anesthesia provider confidence with EMG derived information during anesthesia delivery, increased from 67 to 90% after the education (P = 0.005). There was a significant relationship between correct stimulating electrode placement and anesthesia provider confidence in the EMG derived data on neuromuscular block status. An educational intervention to improve EMG electrode positioning proved meaningful. It increased anesthesia provider confidence in the EMG derived data during anesthesia case management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39433701What 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.