ArticleCase reports in anesthesiology2026
Noncardiogenic Pulmonary Edema After Neostigmine Administration During Emergence From General Anesthesia: A Case Report.
Article in Case reports in 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.
- Noncardiogenic Pulmonary Edema After Neostigmine Administration During Emergence From General Anesthesia: A Case Report.Case reports in anesthesiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We report the case of a previously healthy 27-year-old man who developed acute pulmonary edema shortly after receiving neostigmine-atropine for neuromuscular blockade reversal during appendectomy under general anesthesia. Before extubation, he developed severe hypoxemia, increased airway pressures, pink frothy tracheal secretions, and bilateral diffuse pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiography. Cardiogenic pulmonary edema, fluid overload, negative-pressure pulmonary edema, and perioperative hypersensitivity were considered unlikely based on the clinical findings, bedside cardiac ultrasound, limited intraoperative fluids, normal histamine and tryptase levels, and negative skin testing. The event was therefore considered a diagnosis of exclusion temporally associated with neostigmine administration. This case highlights the importance of careful differential diagnosis and cautious causal attribution when respiratory compromise occurs after reversal.
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.