Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27619803›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2016

Is there light at the end of the tunnel?-new perspectives in ECMO survival.

Federico Pappalardo, Andrea Montisci

Open access · hybridAbstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 91% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Federico PappalardoDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy ;
Andrea MontisciDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, Gruppo Ospedaliero San Donato, Milan, Italy.
Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio · ITSan Raffaele University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a state of systemic hypoperfusion, secondary to a deficit in cardiac contractile activity. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) accounts for the majority of cases of CS, with a high mortality rate, despite the great improvements in revascularisation therapy. Nowadays, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in CS often represents the only therapeutic approach able to restore systemic perfusion, determining a survival benefit. Recently, many efforts have been made to identify factors associated with mortality in patients receiving MCS devices. New insights into the pathophysiology of CS prompted the concept that the use of MCS should be considered early in the course of the disease, before the progression to multiorgan dysfunction. However, many questions remain unsolved and randomised trials in this field are hard to perform. Looking at the future, the timely implantation of temporary MCS, the correct selection of patient, the concomitant use of different temporary devices, the improvement in weaning strategies and the increasing use of durable devices as a destination or bridge therapy appear to be the most promising areas of development.

Indexed as

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenationmyocardial infarctionshock, cardiogenic

Identifiers

PMID27619803
PMCPMC4999729
OpenAlexW2518556076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.