Observational studyAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2026
Comparison of kinemyography and electromyography during onset of and recovery from non-depolarising neuromuscular blockade: prospective observational study.
Observational study in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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
backgroundQuantitative neuromuscular monitoring is essential for the safe management of neuromuscular blockade. Although electromyography (EMG) is increasingly regarded as a reference technique, kinemyography (KMG) remains widely used in clinical practice; however, clinically relevant differences between these modalities during onset and recovery of neuromuscular blockade are not fully understood.
methodsIn this prospective observational study, adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia with non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents were simultaneously monitored using EMG and KMG applied to opposite hands, and onset and recovery times of neuromuscular block were compared between modalities; additionally, a novel EMG-derived parameter (T1%) was explored as a marker of recovery.
resultsIn the 137 analysed patients, EMG and KMG differed during onset and recovery, with greater and only statistically significant disagreement during onset (EMG 158 ± 74 s vs. KMG 118 ± 68 s, P < 0.001; recovery: EMG 27 ± 22 min vs. KMG 24 ± 21 min, P = 0.242). T1% tended to be higher with sugammadex than with spontaneous recovery (P = 0.074).
conclusionsKMG and EMG are not interchangeable for perioperative neuromuscular monitoring; the observed disagreement suggests that KMG may overestimate neuromuscular block, whereas EMG-based monitoring may provide a safer approach. The EMG-derived parameter T1% appears promising but requires further validation before routine clinical use.
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.