Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35734512›Full record

ArticleCJC open2022

CEPP: Canadian Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Protocol Project.

Andrew Fagan, Brian Grunau, Andrew Caddell, James Gould, Erin Rayner-Hartley, Yoan Lamarche, Gurmeet Singh, Dave Nagpal, Marat Slessarev

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CJC open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Andrew FaganDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Brian GrunauDepartment of Emergency Medicine and the Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcome Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Andrew CaddellDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
James GouldDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Erin Rayner-HartleyDivision of Cardiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Yoan LamarcheDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Montreal Heart Institute, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Gurmeet SinghDepartment of Critical Care Medicine & Surgery, Division of Cardiac Surgery, Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Dave NagpalDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Marat SlessarevDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Complications and mortality are higher at lower-volume centres. Most Canadian ECLS institutions are low-volume centres. Protocols offer one way to share best practices among institutions to improve outcomes. Whether Canadian centres have ECLS protocols, and whether these protocols are comprehensive and homogenous across centres, is unknown. Methods: Purposeful sampling with mixed methods was used. A Delphi panel defined key elements relevant to the ECLS process. Documentation used in the delivery of ECLS services was requested from programs. Institutional protocols were assessed using deductive coding to determine the presence of key elements. Results: A total of 37 key elements spanning 5 domains (referral, initiation, maintenance, termination, and administration) were identified. Documentation from 13 institutions across 10 provinces was obtained. Institutions with heart or lung transplantation programs had more-complete documentation than did non-transplantation programs. Only 5 key elements were present in at least 50% of protocols (anticoagulation strategy, ventilation strategy, defined referral process, selection criteria, weaning process), and variation was seen in how institutions approached each of these elements. Conclusions: The completeness of ECLS protocols varies across Canada. Programs describe variable approaches to key elements. This variability might represent a lack of evidence or consensus in these areas and creates the opportunity for collaboration among institutions to share protocols and best practice. The key-element framework provides a common language that programs can use to develop ECLS programs, initiate quality-improvement projects, and identify research agendas.

Identifiers

PMID35734512
PMCPMC9207773

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.