ReviewPakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Survival after venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute high-risk Pulmonary Embolism: A meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Review in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of Sarcopenia on outcomes of pulmonary embolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Review
- Heparin and Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Massive Pulmonary Embolism Management: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2026Article
- Successful rescue of a high-risk pulmonary embolism using thrombolysis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and percutaneous pulmonary thrombectomy: a case report.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Evolving Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism with Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation-A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The survival benefit of venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO) for the management of acute high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unclear. This meta-analysis combines data from comparative studies to assess the risk of mortality after ECMO vs standard care in the management of acute high-risk PE. Methods: Databases of PubMed, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from 01 Results: Ten studies were included. Meta-analysis showed that the risk of early mortality was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO groups (RR: 0.97 95% CI: 0.78, 1.19 I Conclusion: Limited evidence derived from mostly retrospective studies riddled with selection bias suggests that ECMO may not offer additional survival benefits in high-risk PE.
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.