ArticlePloS one2024
Patient education and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation preferences of patients and providers in COVID care.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Decisional conflict among Chinese family caregivers prior to ECMO initiation: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) represents an important but limited treatment for patients with severe COVID-19. We assessed the effects of an educational intervention on a person's ECMO care preference and examined whether patients and providers had similar ECMO preferences.
methodsIn the Video+Survey group, patients watched an educational video about ECMO's purpose, benefits, and risks followed by an assessment of ECMO knowledge and care preferences in seven scenarios varying by hypothetical patient age, function, and comorbidities. Patients in the Survey Only group and providers didn't watch the video. Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of agreement for each ECMO scenario between the two patient groups and then between all patients and providers.
resultsVideo+Survey patients were more likely (64% vs. 17%; p = 0.02) to correctly answer all ECMO knowledge questions than Survey Only patients. Patients in both groups agreed that ECMO should be considered across all hypothetical scenarios, with predicted agreement above 65%. In adjusted analyses, patients and providers had similar predicted agreement for ECMO consideration across six of the seven scenarios, but patients showed greater preference (84% vs. 41%, p = 0.003) for the scenario of a functionally dependent 65-year-old with comorbidities than providers. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsAn educational video increased a person's ECMO knowledge but did not change their ECMO preferences. Clinicians were less likely than patients to recommend ECMO for older adults, so advanced care planning discussion between patients and providers about treatment options in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is critical.
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.