ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
CALL TO ECLS-Acronym for Reporting Patients for Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Procedure from Prehospital Setting to Destination Centers.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The acronym CALL TO ECLS has been proposed as a potential tool to support decision-making in critical communication moments when qualifying a patient for the ECPR procedure. The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of the acronym and validate its content. Validation is crucial to ensure that the acronym is theoretically correct and includes the necessary information that must be conveyed by EMS during the qualification of a patient with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest for ECMO. A survey was conducted using the LimeSurvey platform through the Survey Research System of the Jagiellonian University Medical College over a 6-month period (from December 2022 to May 2023). Usefulness, importance, clarity, and unambiguity were rated on a 4-point Likert scale, from 1 (not useful, not important, unclear, ambiguous) to 4 (useful, important, clear, unambiguous). On the 4-point scale, the Content Validity Index (I-CVI) was calculated as the percentage of subject matter experts who rated the criterion as having a level of importance/clarity/validity/uniqueness of 3 or 4. The Scale-level Content Validity Index (S-CVI) based on the average method was computed as the average of I-CVI scores (S-CVI-AVE) for all considered criteria (protocol). The number of fully completed surveys by experts was 35, and partial completion was obtained in 63 cases. All criteria were deemed significant/useful, with I-CVI coefficients ranging from 0.87 to 0.97. Similarly, the importance of all criteria was confirmed, as all I-CVI coefficients were greater than 0.78 (ranging from 0.83 to 0.97). The average I-CVI score for the ten considered criteria in terms of usefulness/significance and importance exceeded 0.9, indicating high validity of the tool/protocol/acronym. Based on the survey results and analysis of responses provided by experts, a second version was created, incorporating additional explanations. In Criterion 10, an explanation was added-"Signs of life"-during conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ROSC, motor response during CPR). It has been shown that the acronym CALL TO ECLS, according to experts, is accurate and contains the necessary content, and can serve as a system to facilitate communication between the pre-hospital environment and specialized units responsible for qualifying patients for the ECPR.
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.