Kvolik 2012a.

Methods	Study design: prospective, randomized study Sample size calculation: no information available
Participants	Number of randomized participants: 36 Inclusion criteria: undergoing thyroidectomy Exclusion criteria: no information available
Interventions	Anaesthesia: propofol and fentanyl for both induction and maintenance NMBA: single intubating dose: rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg; maintenance dose: rocuronium 0.1 mg/kg Comparison: sugammadex 2 mg/kg (n = 17) vs neostigmine 50 µg/kg (n = 19) Administration time of sugammadex or neostigmine: reappearance of T2
Outcomes	Recovery of TOFR > 90% of baseline, recovery of cough reflexes enabling safe extubation, spontaneous minute volume at the time of extubation
Notes	Publication type: meeting abstract Country: Croatia Conversions: none Handling of adverse events: No discrepancy exists between AEs presented in the meeting abstract and those reported in this review Authors’ conclusions: Recovery of cough reflexes was faster and respiration more efficient in patients receiving sugammadex. A safe extubation was determined by age, TOF recovery, and effects of other anaesthetics Contact: first trial author Slavica Kvolik contacted by email: slavica.kvolik@os.t‐com.hr on 14.10.2015; no reply received
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Randomized"; no further information available
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Blinding of participants (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Blinding of personnel (performance bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Blinding of primary outcome assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Blinding of safety assessment (detection bias)	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol not available, but published meeting abstract clearly includes all expected outcomes
Funding bias	Unclear risk	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information
Other bias	Unclear risk	No information on sample size calculation. No differences regarding participant characteristics and preparative FT4, FT3, and TSH levels between groups