ReviewIPEM-translation2024
A review of the clinical value of mechanical ventilators and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) equipment.
Review in IPEM-translation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute healthcare providers operate large, diverse medical equipment inventories. Resources for managing these inventories is frequently scarce so must be prioritised such that maximum benefit is conferred per unit of expenditure. This review identifies publications which have discussed the clinical value conferred by mechanical ventilation (MV) and by extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Respectively, mechanical ventilators and ECMO units are necessary to deliver these therapies. Systematic searches for publications which discuss the clinical value conferred by MV and by ECMO were conducted. The identified articles included reviews, prospective studies, retrospective studies, and models. Most presented findings in terms of the cost-effectiveness ratio. The patient populations studied, and analytical methods used varied widely. The clinical value conferred by MV varied with dependencies on several factors including the age- and disease- profile of the patient population. It was not possible to infer these dependencies from the literature which exists for ECMO. More relevant literature existed for MV, the more mature technology, than did for ECMO. The ECMO literature also tended to be more recent and included more modelling studies and fewer prospective studies. The data extracted could inform estimates of the clinical value likely to be delivered by mechanical ventilators operated by a specific institution. Estimates for ECMO are likely to carry greater uncertainty than those for MV.
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.