ArticleBMC anesthesiology2023
Sex differences in utilisation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support and outcomes in Taiwan.
Article in BMC anesthesiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Heart Failure Pharmacotherapy and Long-Term Outcomes After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Nationwide Real-World Cohort Study.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Sex-specific differences in risk factors and outcomes for long-term mechanical ventilation: a longitudinal cohort analysis of claims data.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Sex Differences in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Receiving Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
- Sex differences in extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: nationwide multicenter retrospective study in Japan.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Addressing Barriers for Women with Advanced Heart Failure.Current cardiology reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of sex-related differences in patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support (ECMO) support is still inconclusive. This population-based study aimed to investigate sex differences in short- or long-term outcomes in order to improve clinical practice.
methodsPatients who received ECMO between 2001 to 2017 were identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. Propensity score matching with a 1:1 ratio was conducted in female-to-male groups, to reduce confounding of baseline covariates. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, all-cause mortality, all-cause readmission, and ECMO-related complications. Logistic regression analysis, Cox proportional hazard model, and join point regression were used to compare sex differences in both short- or long-term outcomes.
resultsIn total, 7,010 matched patients from 11,734 ECMO receivers were included for analysis. The use of ECMO increased dramatically in past years, although the proportion of females was still lower than males. There was a decreasing trend of females undergoing ECMO over time. Female patients have lower risks of in-hospital mortality (64.08% in females vs 66.48% in males; P = 0.0352) and ECMO-related complications compared with males. Furthermore, females also had favorable long-term late outcomes such as all-cause mortality (73.35% in females vs 76.98% in males; P = 0.009) and readmission rate (6.99% in females vs 9.19% in males; P = 0.001).
conclusionsFemale patients had more favorable in-hospital and long-term survival outcomes. Despite improvement in modern ECMO technique and equipment, ECMO remains underutilized in eligible female patients. Thus, females should undergo ECMO treatment if available and indicated.
trial registrationThe institutional review board of Chang Gung Memorial Hospital approved all data usage and the study protocol (registration number: 202100151B0C502; date of registration: 23/08/2021).
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.