ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2025
Prognostic scores of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a scoping review.
Article in World journal of emergency medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an effective measure for saving the lives of critically ill patients. Prompt identification of the risk factors for mortality among patients receiving ECMO and comprehensive analysis of the long-term prognosis of survivors are vital. This scoping review summarized the representative prognostic scoring systems, aiming to help clinicians in selecting an appropriate scoring system to avoid unnecessary medical resource consumption and reduce ECMO-associated mortality.
methodsA comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, was conducted. After removing duplicate studies, a full-text review was performed, and all studies that reported score systems before and/or after ECMO support were included. This protocol adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and has been registered with the Open Science Framework (osf.io/zp4ge).
resultsAmong the 114 studies included, we identified three scores for patients receiving veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO), five scores for patients receiving veno-arterial ECMO (VA-ECMO), and three critical illness scores, which apply to both VV- and VA-ECMO conditions. All characteristics of these scoring systems, their advantages, and their limitations were summarized.
conclusionThe implementation of an ECMO scoring system helps to assess the condition of critically ill patients, predict outcome, and provide objective indicators to determine the optimal timing for ECMO intervention. Due to the limitations of the currently available scores, further efforts in improving and validating the ECMO scoring system are needed to achieve the goals of minimizing unnecessary consumption of medical resources and reducing mortality rates.
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.