Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35812597›Full record

ReviewCureus2022

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) Dependent Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dhan B Shrestha, Yub Raj Sedhai, Pravash Budhathoki, Suman Gaire, Prarthana Subedi, Swojay Maharjan, Mengdan Yuan, Ankush Asija, Waqas Memon

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Dhan B ShresthaDepartment of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Chicago, USA.
Yub Raj SedhaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, USA.
Pravash BudhathokiDepartment of Internal Medicine, BronxCare Health System, Bronx, USA.
Suman GaireDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Palpa District Hospital, Palpa, NPL.
Prarthana SubediDepartment of Internal Medicine, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, NPL.
Swojay MaharjanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Nepalese Army Institute of Health Sciences, Kathmandu, NPL.
Mengdan YuanInternal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA.
Ankush AsijaDepartment of Internal Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown, USA.
Waqas MemonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, USA.
Virginia Commonwealth University · USMount Sinai Hospital · USPall Corporation (United States) · USWest Virginia University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a newer method for managing severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and ARDS refractory to conventional management. However, its current role in the management of ARDS is not clear. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the mortality rates of ECMO over conventional management in ARDS.

methodsPubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, and Scopus were searched using appropriate keywords. We selected studies in adults with ARDS that compared the outcomes of patients treated with ECMO vs. conventional management. Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 and the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) quality assessment tools were used for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. The I

resultTwelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. As compared to the conventional management (mechanical ventilation: MV), patients treated with ECMO had lower odds of 30-days mortality (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.84) and 90 days mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.85). However, there was no significant difference between in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.40 to 1.41) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.36 to 2.79). Similarly, length of hospital stays (LOS) (MD, 3.92; 95% CI, -6.26 to 14.11) did not show statistically significant differences across the two groups. However, the average ICU stay (ICU LOS) was 7.28 days longer in the ECMO group compared with the MV group (MD, 7.28; 95% CI, 2.55 to 12.02).

conclusionTwenty-eight days and 90-days mortality were decreased in patients managed with ECMO compared with the MV group. Also, ICU LOS was found to be longer in the ECMO group. Furthermore, no statistical difference was found between the two groups for in-hospital mortality and hospital LOS.

Indexed as

ardsecmomechanical ventilationmeta-analysissystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35812597
PMCPMC9270094
OpenAlexW4281697680

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.