ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Advances in Neuromuscular Monitoring Techniques in Anesthesiology: A 2025 Perspective.
Review in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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.
- Muscle-Specific Differences in Neuromuscular Block and Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring: A Narrative Review.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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Residual neuromuscular blockade occurs in 20-40% of patients following the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) during general anesthesia, with the potential for serious complications. Despite the publication of formal guidelines, routine objective neuromuscular monitoring remains underused in many clinical settings, often due to misconceptions about its necessity, time constraints, and lack of equipment. However, clinical signs alone, such as the ability to perform basic motor tasks, are unreliable, especially in vulnerable populations. Objective methods like acceleromyography (AMG), mechanomyography (MMG), and electromyography (EMG) provide accurate measurements but may still face challenges like artifacts and technological limitations. In 2024, several significant advances were made in this field, including new reviews on the use of neuromuscular blockade in special clinical situations, comparisons of train-of-four (TOF) Scan and TOF-Cuff in different locations, and the development of new device prototypes. Briefly, in clinical practice, the predominant method is acceleromyography, although it is associated with high variability and systematic measurement error. Compressomyography, which also enables simultaneous blood pressure measurement, is of secondary importance. Kinemyography, sonomyography, and sonomechanomyography are rarely used alternatives to the more commonly employed techniques. Despite the abundance of methods and devices, the use of neuromonitoring in clinical practice worldwide remains low. Studies indicate that clinician education alone does not increase the frequency of neuromonitoring in clinical settings. However, a multifaceted intervention - including equipment trials, educational videos, quantitative monitors in all anesthetizing locations, electronic clinical decision support with real-time alerts, and ongoing professional practice metrics - has proven to be effective.
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.