ReviewHealth science reports2025
Neuromuscular Blocking Agents and Tracheal Intubation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Effects on Laryngeal Complications and Intubating Conditions.
Review in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Use of Endotracheal Intubation Without Neuromuscular Blockade: The Current Stage of Knowledge.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: The use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in tracheal intubation is widely accepted in anesthetic induction, but adverse effects are possible. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare influence of use and nonuse of NMBAs on incidence of laryngeal complications and intubating conditions in surgical patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing use of NMBAs with either placebo or no treatment for oral tracheal intubation in adult patients under general anesthesia. Studies were evaluated using a risk-of-bias assessment. We conducted random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analyses on extracted data and calculated risk ratio (RR), risk difference (RD), and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Nine trials with 1176 participants were included. Incidence of postoperative sore throat or hoarseness did not differ between groups receiving and not receiving NMBAs at 24 h (RR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.96-1.46; I Conclusion: Endotracheal intubation without NMBAs does not increase the incidence of postoperative hoarseness or sore throat in adult surgical patients, which may be considered as a safe and effective technique of anesthesia induction. Although NMBAs use was associated with acceptable intubating conditions and reduced risk for poor intubation conditions. Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021284813.
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.