Trial reportThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2025
Clinical evaluation of SafeCEC
Trial report in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), blood circulation is temporarily maintained by an artificial blood-pumping device during cardiac surgery. Worldwide, approximately half of the CPB procedures utilize either centrifugal or roller pumps (Wu P et al. Front Physiol 12, 699891). Centrifugal pumps, while non-occlusive, pose a risk of blood reflux if there is a system failure, which endangers patient safety (Souza MHL, Elias DO. Fundamentos da Circulação Extracorpórea 2006; 186-192). SafeCEC MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter approval by the Ethics Committee, 31 patients undergoing CPB with a centrifugal pump were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A, where SafeCEC
resultsThis device has been shown to be effective in controlling blood reflux, eliminating the need for arterial line clamps. Analysis of plasma free hemoglobin levels revealed no significant differences between the groups with or without SafeCEC
conclusionThe SafeCEC
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.