ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2025
Use of Muscle Relaxants in Emergency Medicine: A Review.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Narrative Review of the Role of Nondepolarizing Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in Anesthesia: Perspective 2026.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
- Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in Anesthesia: A Narrative Review of Contemporary Challenges and Reversal Approaches.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Postmortem Redistribution of Drugs Commonly Used in Rapid Sequence Induction for Anesthesia: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Use of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents in Elderly Patients: A Narrative Review in Geriatric Medicine.International journal of general 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
Modern anesthesia, intensive care, and emergency medicine rely heavily on neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs), first introduced in 1942. These agents not only facilitate endotracheal intubation but also improve surgical conditions by suppressing muscle responses to stimuli. NMBAs function via depolarizing (eg, succinylcholine) or non-depolarizing mechanisms. Non-depolarizing agents are further classified by chemical structure into aminosteroids (eg, rocuronium, vecuronium), benzylisoquinolinium compounds (eg, atracurium, cisatracurium), and asymmetric mixed-onium chlorofumarates (gantacurium). These differ in metabolism, histamine release potential, and duration of action. The effect of neuromuscular blocking agents is influenced by numerous patient-related factors, including age, body weight, sex, organ function, and others, which significantly complicates the selection of the optimal drug and its dose. In emergency medicine, NMBAs are critical for rapid-sequence intubation (RSI), used in both prehospital and emergency department (ED) settings. RSI is performed under challenging conditions, often involving critically ill patients with unknown medical histories. Succinylcholine and rocuronium are the primary agents used in this context. Ongoing debates persist regarding the choice between succinylcholine and rocuronium for RSI, the potential superiority of one agent over the other, and the selection of the optimal dosage. Modern technologies allow for neuromuscular blockade monitoring through train-of-four (TOF) assessment. However, such monitoring methods are rarely used in ED. This review article explores the pharmacological characteristics, clinical indications, and emergency applications of NMBAs, emphasizing the need for increased awareness of their risks and proper use.
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.