SynthesisJournal of perioperative practice2026
Comparing sugammadex to neostigmine and their effects on delirium and postoperative cognitive function: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of perioperative practice, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSugammadex is a relatively new therapeutic agent that reverses neuromuscular blockade. Compared to neostigmine, it is hypothesised that sugammadex could have a beneficial effect on postoperative cognitive function, benefitting postoperative recovery.
objectiveTo compare the effects of both sugammadex and neostigmine on delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction.
methodsA systematic search of all relevant randomised controlled trials and observational cohort studies was performed in October 2024, utilising the following inclusion criteria: incidence of delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction following administration of neostigmine or sugammadex, adult patients, patients given rocuronium or vecuronium, English language studies, papers since the introduction of sugammadex (2008). CASP and Cochrane risk-of-bias tools were utilised for study appraisal, with a narrative synthesis of the results.
resultsFive studies, reporting interventions in 49,910 patients, met the review criteria and were included. Of these, four showed no difference in cognitive function between sugammadex and neostigmine. One cohort study of 21 patients showed favourable outcomes postoperatively in the sugammadex group.
conclusionThis systematic review suggests the possibility of a very limited neurological protective role of sugammadex compared to neostigmine, but no clinical significance was reported. Only a limited number of studies were available, suggesting the need for further research.
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.