SynthesisPloS one2025
Effect of prone positioning in adult patients receiving veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effects of prone positioning during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and its effects on short-term and long-term survival.
methodsA computerized search was performed for all studies in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 31, 2023, including prospective and retrospective clinical studies of ECMO-treated patients with or without prone positioning. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened in duplicate by two investigators. The primary outcome was short-term survival (survival at discharge or 1-month survival). The secondary outcomes included long-term survival (60-day survival, 90-day survival), ECMO duration, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and ECMO weaning.
resultsFifteen studies with 2608 patients were included, most of which were retrospective. The effect of prone versus non-prone positioning in ECMO patients was OR = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.88-1.97; P = 0.18 for short-term survival from the original data. The effects of prone positioning during ECMO were a significant increase in 28-day survival (OR = 2.54; 95% CI 1.71-3.76; P < 0.00001) and survival at discharge (OR = 1.49; 95% CI 1.11-2.00; P = 0.009), which appeared in the non-COVID-19 patient group. Furthermore, the short-term effects of prone ventilation in ECMO patients were also improved in the matching analysis (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.23-2.23; P = 0.0008), but did not in the long-term survival rate (OR = 1.57; 95% CI, 0.90-2.76; P = 0.11). The durations of ECMO (OR = 1.99; 95% CI, 1.99-2.70; P < 0.00001) and ICU stay (OR = 1.17; 95% CI, 0.58-1.75; P < 0.0001) were significantly different between the prone group and the non-prone group.
conclusionProne position ventilation during ECMO confers no significant advantage in improving long-term survival and only slightly benefits short-term survival. Therefore, the prone position during ECMO should be carefully considered because further randomized clinical trials on this subject are needed.
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.