ArticleJAMA network open2026
Clinician Perspectives on the Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Decision-Making Process.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) is a resource-intensive, life-sustaining technology to support patients with severe refractory respiratory failure. Its precise indications and contraindications are not standardized, and expert opinions are frequently changing, leading to variation in why and to whom VV ECMO is offered. Objective: To characterize the ways clinicians approach candidacy selection, the criteria considered, and the relative weight given to such variables. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted virtual semistructured interviews of clinicians between September and December 2024. Transcripts were qualitatively analyzed from January to June 2025 using both inductive and deductive approaches to thematic analysis and line-by-line consensus coding. Participants were physicians and ECMO coordinators from various urban, rural, public, and private medical centers in 9 countries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes and subthemes that reflected clinicians' experiences and views. Results: A purposeful sample of 45 clinicians directly involved in ECMO candidacy selection were contacted, of whom 24 (19 males [79%]) enrolled. Among these 24 participants interviewed, 21 (88%) were physicians and 3 (12%) were ECMO center coordinators; 8 (33%) practiced outside of the US. Five main themes were identified: (1) clinicians vary in their interpretation and incorporation of patient age, body mass index, and time on mechanical ventilation when selecting VV ECMO candidates; (2) perceived contraindications to VV ECMO are often flexible depending on various ethical and social criteria; (3) cognitive biases and heuristics affect the VV ECMO decision-making process; (4) institutional and cultural contexts shape individual VV ECMO candidacy decisions; and (5) participants provided suggestions to improve consistency in VV ECMO candidacy selection. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, decisions to pursue VV ECMO for patients with severe respiratory failure were largely based on clinical judgments of suitability rather than objective guidelines. Variability in candidacy decision-making may lead to inconsistent or inequitable allocation.
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.