Study	Reason for exclusion
Aho 2012	Study outcomes not of interest to our review RCT investigating elevated BIS and entropy values after reversal with sugammadex 200 mg vs neostigmine 2.5 mg following rocuronium 0.6 mg kg‐1
Baysal 2013	Study outcomes not of interest to our review RCT investigating use of sugammadex 1 mg kg‐1 for reversal of residual blockade after administration of neostigmine 0.07 mg kg‐1 and atropine 0.02 mg kg‐1
Dahaba 2012	Study outcomes not of interest to our review RCT investigating effects of sugammadex 4 mg kg‐1 vs neostigmine 0.05 mg kg‐1/glycopyrrolate 0.01 mg kg‐1 neuromuscular block reversal on bispectral index monitoring
Gaona 2012	Study included 30 paediatric patients, aged 2 to 11 years RCT comparing efficacy and safety of reversal with sugammadex 4 mg kg‐1 vs neostigmine 0.05 mg kg‐1/atropine 0.025 mg kg‐1 in paediatric patients with deep blockade induced by rocuronium 0.6 mg kg‐1
Ghoneim 2015	RCT investigating use of sugammadex and neostigmine for reversing profound NMB in paediatric neurosurgical patients who have undergone posterior fossa tumour excision
Harazim 2014	Same meeting abstract data later published in peer‐reviewed article (Stourac 2016)
Kakinuma 2013	Study comparison not relevant to our review. RCT comparing sugammadex 1 mg/kg vs sugammadex 0.5 mg/kg + neostigmine 0.04 mg/kg, examining the cost of reversal and recovery time
Kara 2014	RCT in paediatric population, comparing efficacy of sugammadex and neostigmine for reversing NMB in 80 paediatric patients, aged 2 to 12 years, undergoing outpatient surgical procedures
Kzlay 2013	Same meeting abstract data later published in peer‐reviewed article (Kizilay 2016)
Nagashima 2016	Study outcomes not of interest to our review Effects of neostigmine and sugammadex on QT interval and QT dispersion Participants received a combination of neostigmine and atropine or sugammadex (2 mg/kg) for reversal of neuromuscular blockade
Nagy 2014	Study retracted owing to changes in protocol made by trial authors, after the protocol was submitted to the Ethics Comittee of the Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt
NCT03111121	Study outcomes not of interest to our review Trial examines use of sugammadex for reversal of paralysis in microlaryngoscopy
Nemes 2016	Not an RCT. Trial is a prospective, partially randomised, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, four‐group parallel‐arm study. Participants received nothing (recover spontaneously), sugammadex, neostigmine, or placebo at the preference of each anaesthesiologist
Ozgun 2014	Study included paediatric patients and compared clinical effects of sugammadex vs combination of anticholinergic‐anticholinesterase agents for reversing of non‐depolarizing neuromuscular block
Pecek 2013	Prospective, observational study. Participants received sugammadex or neostigmine at the preference of each anaesthesiologist
Sacan 2007	Not a truly randomized process, as participants could choose to not be included in the sugammadex group
Schepens 2015	Study included healthy volunteers and compared electromyographic activity of the diaphragm (EMGdi) during recovery from neuromuscular blockade using neostigmine and sugammadex
Stourac 2016	Study comparison not relevant to our review RCT comparing muscle relaxation induced with rocuronium 1 mg/kg, reversal with sugammadex 2 to 4 mg/kg with succinylcholine 1 mg/kg for induction, rocuronium 0.3 mg/kg for maintenance, and neostigmine 0.03 mg/kg for reversal of neuromuscular blockade
Veiga Ruiz 2011	Study performed on 24 paediatric patients, aged 2 to 9 Aim of the RCT was to compare the efficacy and security of sugammadex 2 mg kg‐1 vs neostigmine 0.05 mg kg‐1/atropine 0.025 mg kg‐1 in reversing moderate blockade with rocuronium 0.45 mg kg‐1

List of acronyms and abbreviations used in these tables

BIS ‐ Bispectral Index; EMGd ‐ diaphragmatic electromyogram; NMB ‐ neuromuscular blockade; RCT ‐ randomized controlled trial