SynthesisBMC anesthesiology2025
The effect of neuromuscular blocking reversal agents on perioperative neurocognitive function after general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. 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.
- Comprehensive Review of Anesthetic Strategies for Patients With Neurodegenerative Diseases.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPerioperative neurocognitive dysfunction (PND) is influenced by various perioperative factors. Recent studies suggest that neuromuscular blocking reversal agents (NMBRs) may impact on PND. However, the results have been inconsistent. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of perioperative NMBRs on PND through this systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and China Biology Medicine from their inception until May 2024. Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the perioperative use of NMBRs with either a placebo or other NMBRs in patients undergoing general anaesthesia. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The primary outcome was the incidence of PND within 7 days following surgery, while the secondary outcomes included the time required to achieve a Train-of-Four ratio (TOF) ≥ 0.9 after administration of NMBRs, length of stay (LOS) in both the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) and the hospital, as well as the risk of adverse events (i.e. postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and mortality).
resultsA total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 1705 patients compared the effects of NMBRs on PND. Neostigmine and sugammadex are the most commonly used NMBRs in clinical anaesthesia practice. In the primary analyses of all regimens, sugammadex significantly reduced the incidence of PND compared to neostigmine (risk ratio [RR] 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.48-0.94; I
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of sugammadex was associated with improved early perioperative neurocognitive function compared to neostigmine when used to reverse neuromuscular blockade, without an increase in the incidence of adverse events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42024520287.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.