ArticleBMJ open2025
Airway clearance techniques for adults receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory failure: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for severe acute respiratory failure (SARF) often experience significant challenges with airway clearance due to disease severity, ultra-protective ventilation strategies and suppression of mucociliary and cough mechanisms. Extremely low tidal volumes and minimal flow rates further hinder secretion mobilisation. Despite increasing global use of ECMO, there is currently no synthesis of evidence describing airway clearance practices, their physiological rationale or outcomes in this population.This scoping review aims to explore the extent and nature of evidence on airway clearance interventions in invasively ventilated adult patients receiving ECMO for SARF. Specific objectives include mapping the types of interventions described and specific parameters, their intended physiological effects, reported outcomes and safety considerations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search will be undertaken across Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid Medline, CINAHL and grey literature sources including TRIP and Google Scholar. Eligible studies will include original data on airway clearance interventions in adult patients (≥16 years) receiving ECMO for SARF. Studies focused on paediatric populations, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal, or solely cardiac ECMO will be excluded.Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts, extract data using a piloted tool and summarise findings using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. Basic qualitative content analysis will support mapping of interventions including parameters, their physiological and clinical rationale, and reported outcomes including adverse effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study involves a review of existing literature and does not include collection of primary data, ethical approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at relevant academic and professional meetings. The results are expected to highlight variations in practice and provide a foundation for future research aimed at optimising respiratory care and improving outcomes for patients receiving ECMO for SARF. REGISTRATION: osf.io/ptfr7.
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.