ArticleBMC anesthesiology2026
Impact of normalizing the acceleromyographic train-of-four ratio on detecting residual paralysis-a cohort study.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. 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.
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
backgroundQuantitative monitoring is recommended to prevent residual postoperative neuromuscular blockade. Guidelines advocate a train-of-four ratio ≥ 0.90 before extubation. Acceleromyography, the most common modality, tends to overestimate recovery. Therefore, normalizing the train-of-four ratio to a pre-blockade baseline is recommended. However, this is not a routine practice. We hypothesized that failure to normalize acceleromyographic measurements may lead to misclassification of neuromuscular recovery. We aimed to describe the incidence of inadequate recovery after blockade and the relationship between non-normalized and normalized train-of-four ratios.
methodsWe examined data from Oslo University Hospital from January 2017 to December 2020 and included patients ≥ 13 years, who underwent general anesthesia with intubation, non-depolarizing blockade, and acceleromyography with an available baseline train-of-four ratio. The primary outcome was the incidence of residual paralysis, defined as a normalized train-of-four ratio < 0.90 at extubation. Among secondary objectives was describing the bias between non-normalized and normalized train-of-four ratios.
resultsAfter screening 50,872 episodes, 1632 cases were included (median age [Q1-Q3] 54.9 yr [40.7–66.8], 43.1% women). The incidence of residual paralysis was 52.8% (862/1632). Regression-based Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean bias (non-normalized –normalized train-of-four ratio) of 0.14 (95% confidence interval 0.11–0.17; p = 0.043), with limits of agreement (± 1.96SD) of –0.13 to 0.35. The variability of the differences increased with higher mean train-of-four ratios, indicating that non-normalized ratios are poor predictors of normalized values.
conclusionMore than half the subjects in our cohort were extubated at a normalized acceleromyographic train-of-four ratio below the recommended minimum of 0.90. Our analyses demonstrate that normalized values cannot be reliably predicted from non-normalized measurements.
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.