ArticleThe Journal of clinical ethics2022
Ethics of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation under Conventional and Crisis Standards of Care.
Article in The Journal of clinical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Operational Ethics in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit: A Practical Framework for Ethical Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Refractory Cardiac Arrest: Current Evidence, Clinical Pathways and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Global research trends and hotspots in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a bibliometric review and knowledge mapping approach (1990-2024).Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in adults with cardiogenic shock.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Impact of pre-transplant veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on post-lung transplant infections.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2025Article
- ECMO in Refractory Septic Shock: Patient Selection, Timing and Hemodynamic Targets.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Web-based Dashboard on ECMO Utilization in Germany: An Interactive Visualization, Analyses, and Prediction Based on Real-life Data.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Ethical Considerations in Ever-Expanding Utilization of ECLS: A Research Agenda.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a form of life support for cardiac and/or pulmonary failure with unique ethical challenges compared to other forms of life support. Ethical challenges with ECMO exist when conventional standards of care apply, and are exacerbated during periods of absolute ECMO scarcity when "crisis standards of care" are instituted. When conventional standards of care apply, we propose that it is ethically permissible to withhold placing patients on ECMO for reasons of technical futility or when patients have terminal, short-term prognoses that are untreatable by ECMO. Under crisis standards of care, it is ethically permissible to broaden exclusionary criteria to also withhold ECMO from patients who have a low likelihood of recovery, to maximize the overall number of lives saved. Unilateral withdrawal of ECMO against a patient's preferences is unethical under conventional standards of care, but is ethical under crisis standards of care to increase access to ECMO to others in society. ECMO should only be rationed when true scarcity exists, and allocation protocols should be transparent to the public. When rationing must occur under crisis standards of care, it is imperative that oversight bodies assess for inequities in the allocation of ECMO and make frequent changes to improve any inequities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35100174PMC9648099What 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.