↓ Skip to main content

Development of an algorithm using clinical tests to avoid post-operative residual neuromuscular block

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Development of an algorithm using clinical tests to avoid post-operative residual neuromuscular block
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0393-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Unterbuchner, Manfred Blobner, Friedrich Pühringer, Matthias Janda, Sebastian Bischoff, Berthold Bein, Annette Schmidt, Kurt Ulm, Viktor Pithamitsis, Heidrun Fink

Abstract

Quantitative neuromuscular monitoring is the gold standard to detect postoperative residual curarization (PORC). Many anesthesiologists, however, use insensitive, qualitative neuromuscular monitoring or unreliable, clinical tests. Goal of this multicentre, prospective, double-blinded, assessor controlled study was to develop an algorithm of muscle function tests to identify PORC. After extubation a blinded anesthetist performed eight clinical tests in 165 patients. Test results were correlated to calibrated electromyography train-of-four (TOF) ratio and to a postoperatively applied uncalibrated acceleromyography. A classification and regression tree (CART) was calculated developing the algorithm to identify PORC. This was validated against uncalibrated acceleromyography and tactile judgement of TOF fading in separate 100 patients. After eliminating three tests with poor correlation, a model with four tests (r = 0.844) and uncalibrated acceleromyography (r = 0.873) were correlated to electromyographical TOF-values without losing quality of prediction. CART analysis showed that three consecutively performed tests (arm lift, head lift and swallowing or eye opening) can predict electromyographical TOF. Prediction coefficients reveal an advantage of the uncalibrated acceleromyography in terms of specificity to identify the EMG measured train-of-four ratio < 0.7 (100% vs. 42.9%) and <0.9 (89.7% vs. 34.5%) compared to the algorithm. However, due to the high sensitivity of the algorithm (100% vs. 94.4%), the risk to overlook an awake patient with a train-of-four ratio < 0.7 was minimal. Tactile judgement of TOF fading showed poorest sensitivity and specifity at train of four ratio < 0.9 (33.7%, 0%) and <0.7 (18.8%, 16.7%). Residual neuromuscular blockade can be detected by uncalibrated acceleromyography and if not available by a pathway of four clinical muscle function tests in awake patients. The algorithm has a discriminative power comparable to uncalibrated AMG within TOF-values >0.7 and <0.3. Clinical Trials.gov (principal investigator's name: CU, and identifier: NCT03219138) on July 8, 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Professor 4 6%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 25 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,757,102
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#346
of 1,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,513
of 317,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#13
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,507 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.