ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2025
Evidence from a Bayesian reanalysis of the iPROVE-OLV study: is it time to update our prior assumptions regarding neuromuscular block and reversal?
Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a Bayesian secondary analysis of a subset of 698 patients in the iPROVE-OLV study, Mazzinari and colleagues report evidence of benefit for the use of neuromuscular monitoring and reversal under a range of prior assumptions (i.e. assumptions of probability of benefit or harm). This is a secondary analysis of the iPROVE-OLV study, a 1308-patient RCT of individualised PEEP and postoperative high-flow nasal cannula oxygen in patients undergoing thoracic surgery. However, detailed information on monitoring modalities and reversal agent dosage, which could impact practice, were not available for analysis. Recent practice guidelines, published by both European and American professional societies have supported routine use of quantitative neuromuscular block and reversal. Practice surveys and observational analyses that predate these guidelines suggest that a significant gap between real world and guideline-recommended practice exists.
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.