ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2026
A single-centre, randomised comparison of the performance and safety of a novel mechanomyography sensor with electromyography.
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06230653 (A Single-centre, Randomised, Prospective Agreement Study to Determine the Clinical Performance and Safety of a Best Practice Medical Device With a Novel Sensor), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
A Single-centre, Randomised, Prospective Agreement Study to Determine the Clinical Performance and Safety of a Best Practice Medical Device With a Novel Sensor
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundQuantitative neuromuscular monitoring is crucial to ensure patient safety when using neuromuscular blocking agents. Although historically considered as the research standard for neuromuscular monitoring, currently, no certified mechanomyography device is available for routine clinical use. This study aimed to investigate noninferiority in precision of a newly developed mechanomyography (TOF
methodsWe conducted a prospective, interventional, single-centre agreement study comparing electromyography and mechanomyography in 33 anaesthetised adult patients. Devices were randomly installed on opposite arms. Train-of-four (TOF) ratios were measured beginning before administration of rocuronium 0.45 mg kg
resultsMechanomyography had higher repeatability coefficients than electromyography at all measured TOF intervals. Mechanomyography was partially noninferior to electromyography because the 95% confidence interval of the median difference between TOF ratios of both techniques (0.039 [0.007 to 0.042]) covered the acceptable margin during baseline, but not after recovery to TOF ratio >0.9 (0.052 [0.047 to 0.076]).
conclusionsThe TOF CLINICAL
trial registrationEUDAMED (CIV-23-06-043334); ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06230653).
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.