ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring during general anesthesia: a prospective clinical audit of adherence to international guidelines.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative neuromuscular (qNM) monitoring is recommended whenever neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) are administered, but adherence in routine clinical practice remains inconsistent. This audit evaluated adherence to recommended qNM monitoring standards in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia at a Portuguese tertiary hospital. This prospective clinical audit evaluated adherence to recommended qNM monitoring standards in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia at a major Portuguese tertiary hospital. Over five predefined weekdays between March and May 2025, all adult patients receiving general anesthesia across six operating or procedural areas were assessed. Of 329 patients included, 308 (93.6%) received NMBAs. Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring was omitted in 13.0% despite universal device availability. Utilization was lower in ambulatory and obstetrical settings and in procedures lasting less than one hour. Increasing anesthesia duration was associated with greater monitoring use in univariable analysis, but this association was not independent of clinical location. Equipment-related limitations accounted for a small proportion of omissions. This audit demonstrates high but incomplete adherence to qNM monitoring standards. Non-adherence is clustered primarily in procedures lasting less than one hour and in ambulatory and obstetrical settings. Although equipment was universally available, factors beyond equipment availability appear to contribute to incomplete implementation. Additional research is required to better understand the reasons underlying monitoring omission. In the meantime, targeted educational strategies and reinforcement of evidence-based neuromuscular monitoring practices may further enhance perioperative patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42900300What 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.