SynthesisMedicine2019
The efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in liver transplantation from non-heart-beating donors: A systemic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison ofTranslational andrology and urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA systematic review and meta-analysis was made to see whether extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in liver transplantation could improve non-heart-beating donors (NHBDs) recipients' outcomes compared with donors after brain death (DBDs) recipients.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies. The study eligible criteria are cohort or case-control studies using ECMO in all NHBDs; studies involved a comparison group of DBDs; and studies evaluated 1-year graft and patient survival rate in NHBDs and DBDs groups.
resultsFour studies with 704 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1-year patient survival rate in NHBDs recipients compared with DBDs recipients was 0.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-1.55). The pooled OR of 1-year graft survival rate in NHBDs recipients compared with DBDs recipients was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.26-0.81). NHBDs recipients were at greater risks to the occurrence of primary nonfunction (PNF) (OR = 7.12, 95% CI, 1.84-27.52) and ischemic cholangiopathy (IC) (OR = 9.46, 95% CI, 2.76-32.4) than DBDs recipients.
conclusionsECMO makes 1-year patient survival acceptable in NHBDs recipients. One-year graft survival rate was lower in NHBDs recipients than in DBDs recipients. Compared with DBDs recipients, the risks to develop PNF and IC were increased among NHBDs recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.