ReviewMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Muscle-Specific Differences in Neuromuscular Block and Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring: A Narrative Review.
Review in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuromuscular blocking agents are an essential component of contemporary anesthesiology. Adequate intraoperative neuromuscular monitoring is recommended to ensure sufficient depth of blockade and prevent postoperative residual neuromuscular block. Several quantitative techniques have been developed to assess neuromuscular transmission at the neuromuscular junction, and the number of clinically relevant monitoring sites has expanded beyond conventional peripheral muscles. In routine practice, train-of-four (TOF) stimulation combined with acceleromyography is most commonly used; the adductor pollicis serves as the standard monitoring site. However, neuromuscular responses measured at the adductor pollicis may differ from those observed in muscles critical for airway management, including the diaphragm and pharyngeal and laryngeal muscles. These muscles typically demonstrate faster onset and recovery, along with earlier recovery to TOF ratios of at least 0.9 by several minutes relative to the adductor pollicis; such dynamics have important clinical implications for intubation conditions and safe extubation. This narrative review summarizes physiologic and pharmacodynamic differences in neuromuscular block among various muscle groups and evaluates clinical evidence regarding alternative monitoring sites (eg, facial, laryngeal, pharyngeal, and foot muscles). The clinical performance and limitations of the TOF-Cuff technique applied to both the upper and lower limbs are also discussed. The review is based on clinically relevant experimental and clinical literature identified through searches of PubMed and Google Scholar, supplemented by reference screening of key papers.
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.