Sherman 2014.

Methods	Study design: prospective, randomized study Sample size calculation: no information available
Participants	Number of randomized participants: 57 Inclusion criteria: undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy Exclusion criteria: no information available
Interventions	Anaesthesia: no information available NMBA: no information available Comparison: sugammadex 2 mg/kg (n = 32) vs neostigmine 2.5 mg (n = 25) Administration time of sugammadex or neostigmine: completion of surgery
Outcomes	Postoperative complications: critical respiratory events, pulmonary complications, minimum SpO2 values in the PACU, airway and pulmonary morbidity, unexpected ICU admission, incidence of reintubation, and duration of hospitalizations
Notes	Publication type: meeting abstract Country: Israel Conversions: none Authors’ conclusions: Use of sugammadex (compared with neostigmine) as a reversal agent following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy surgery was associated with higher postoperative oxygen saturation despite lower TOF count before administration of reversal agent. Lack of differences in other measured variables may stem from the small patient groups studied Contact: first trial author Tiberiu Ezri contacted by email: tezri@netvision.net.il on 26.05.2016; no reply received
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Randomized study"; 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	Unable to assess owing to insufficient information. Demographic data were similar between groups