Skip Navigation

British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007 99(2):297-299; doi:10.1093/bja/aem190
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Viby-Mogensen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ensor, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Viby-Mogensen, J.
Right arrow Articles by Ensor, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarization

J. Viby-Mogensen*, C. Claudius and L. I. Eriksson

Copenhagen, Denmark

* E-mail: viby@rh.dk

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Editor—In their meta-analysis of neuromuscular monitoring and postoperative residual curarization (PORC), Naguib and colleagues1 conclude that they ‘... could not demonstrate that the use of an intraoperative neuromuscular function monitor decreased the incidence of PORC’. We agree that given their hypothesis (that intraoperative neuromuscular monitoring, including both objective and non-objective methods, would reduce the incidence of PORC) and the chosen methodology (a meta-analysis based on both comparative and non-comparative studies), this conclusion on their work is correct. However, we do question the relevance of both the hypothesis and the use of a meta-analysis—and accordingly also their conclusion. In fact, the authors themselves also doubt the conclusion reached, based on . . . [Full Text of this Article]

M. Naguib*, A. F. Kopman and J. E. Ensor

Houston, USA

* E-mail: naguib@mdanderson.org


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. Naguib
Sugammadex May Replace Best Clinical Practice: A Misconception
Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2007; 105(5): 1506 - 1507.
[Full Text] [PDF]