ArticleResuscitation plus2022
A qualitative analysis of physician decision making in the use of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory cardiac arrest.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Humans Versus Machine: Machine Learning-Based Individualized Treatment Effect Modeling for Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Clinicians' experience of barriers and facilitators to care delivery of an extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation service for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a qualitative survey.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- The state of emergency department extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: Where are we now, and where are we going?Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Review
- Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiac arrest: what, when, why, and how.Expert review of respiratory medicine · 2023Review
- In-hospital extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: an analysis by time-dependent propensity score matching using a nationwide database in Japan.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- How confidently can we prognosticate survival when starting ECPR?Resuscitation · 2023Article
- Advanced and Invasive Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) Techniques as an Adjunct to Advanced Cardiac Life Support.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim of Study: To prepare for the design of future randomized clinical trials of extracorporeal cardioupulmonary resuscitation (ECPR), we sought to understand physician beliefs regarding the use of ECPR and subsequent management, among physicians who already perform ECPR, as these physicians would be likely to be involved in many planned ECPR trials. Methods: We performed 12 semi-structured interviews of physicians who already perform ECPR across a variety of medical specialties, centers and geographic regions, but all with 10-50+ cases of ECPR experience. We qualitatively analyzed these interview to identify key characteristics of their experience using ECPR, the tensions involved in patient identification, the complications of subsequent management, and their willingness to enroll potential ECPR patients in randomized trials of ECPR. Results: Physicians who routinely perform ECPR have strong beliefs regarding the use of ECPR, and typically have protocols they follow, though they are willing to break these protocols to cannulate young or healthy patients, or patients with immediate pre-hospital CPR and shockable rhythms. We found that physicians lacked equipoise to randomize these types of patients to continued conventional CPR. Future RCTs might be successful in enrolling older patients, younger patients without immediate pre-hospital care/bystander CPR, or patients with obvious comorbidities. Conclusions: RCTs for ECPR will need to avoid targeting patients in whom physicians feel strongly compelled to do ECPR or not do ECPR, instead identifying the middle range of patients in whom the physicians consider ECPR reasonable, but not required or contraindicated.
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.