ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2025
Response to the Letter regarding "Sugammadex vs neostigmine in post-anesthesia recovery: A systematic review and meta-analysis".
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 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.
- Endovascular Iliac Vein Revascularization Versus Conservative Management for Chronic, Symptomatic Iliac Vein Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This response addresses feedback on our systematic review and meta-analysis comparing sugammadex with neostigmine for neuromuscular block reversal. We acknowledge high heterogeneity for time-based outcomes, likely due to differences in clinical settings and anesthetic/surgical protocols, but pooled effects consistently favored sugammadex for faster and more complete reversal. We agree hypnotic depth and other perioperative factors may modify emergence and airway safety, yet these variables were inconsistently reported and could not be analyzed quantitatively. We also clarify that time outcomes were synthesized using standardized mean differences to account for different reporting units, and any presentation inconsistencies will be corrected. Overall, our findings support pharmacologic superiority of sugammadex with reductions in selected complications, while emphasizing that broader recovery quality may not uniformly improve and should be interpreted in clinical context.
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.