SynthesisBMJ open2024
Impact of awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation on patients mortality with cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis based on observational studies.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Delirium in critically ill COVID-19 patients: incidence, predictors, and outcomes in invasive mechanical ventilation with versus without ECMO support.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Article
- ECMO management in cardiogenic shock-specialized versus non-cardiogenic shock-specialized centers: a registry-based analysis.BMC anesthesiology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe use of awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO, without intubation or sedation under ECMO support in patients with cardiogenic shock is growing rapidly because emerging clinical investigations indicates it may reduce morbidity associated with sedation and intubation. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of awake ECMO and provided evidence for clinical practitioners and researchers.
designSystematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis based on observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Data was retrieved from seven databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and Cochrane Library) up to 1 March 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included observational studies that compared the differences in clinical outcomes between awake ECMO and non-awake ECMO in patients with cardiogenic shock. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers rigorously conducted literature retrieval, screening and data extraction. The RevMan software was used for data synthesis.
resultsFive retrospective observational studies involving 1044 patients with cardiogenic shock were included. Compared with non-awake ECMO, awake ECMO was associated with a lower mortality rate of patients with cardiogenic shock (OR=0.28; 95% CI, (0.15, 0.49); p<0.0001; I
conclusionsImplementing awake ECMO may result in better clinical outcomes in patients with cardiogenic shock. Because of the limited sample sizes and potential bias of the current studies, more rigorously designed large-scale trials are urgently needed to verify the above findings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023407607.
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.