ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2026
Comparative decision-making analysis of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation candidacy based on a survey of pediatric critical care fellow and attending physicians☆.
Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 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
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) candidacy decisions for children with respiratory failure can be variable among pediatric critical care attending physicians, and prior studies showed that baseline functional status and underlying neurological conditions influence this decision. However, there are limited data regarding factors influencing pediatric critical care fellows' ECMO candidacy decisions and their alignment with attending physicians. This study aimed to identify patient characteristics influencing fellows' ECMO candidacy decisions and measure concordance with attending decisions.
methodsThis study was a planned secondary analysis of a prospective, single-center, cross-sectional study at a quaternary pediatric ECMO referral center. Pediatric critical care fellows and attending physicians caring for children admitted with acute respiratory failure were surveyed within 72 h of initiation or escalation of respiratory support. The primary exposure was patient functional status at admission, measured by the functional status score (FSS), and was categorized as Normal/Mild Dysfunction (FSS 6-9) or Moderate/Severe Dysfunction (FSS >10). Multivariate logistic regression clustered by fellow evaluated factors influencing ECMO candidacy assessments. Cohen's kappa measured concordance between fellow and attending decisions.
resultsEighty surveys were completed by 21 pediatric critical care fellows. Fellows identified 19% of patients as ECMO non-candidates. After adjustment for age, moderate/severe admission dysfunction significantly reduced the odds of ECMO candidacy (aOR 0.11, 95% CI 0.03-0.51, p = 0.005). Overall, concordance between fellows and attendings was moderate (κ = 0.56), with junior fellows having minimal agreement (κ = -0.12). Fellows focused primarily on baseline functional status and comorbidities, while attendings considered additional factors, including long-term prognosis, organ failure irreversibility, and ECMO-related risks in candidacy assessments.
conclusionAdmission functional status influences pediatric critical care fellows' ECMO candidacy decisions, with moderate concordance observed between fellows and attending physicians. The identified discrepancies emphasize the importance of structured education and targeted mentorship programs to enhance consistency in ECMO candidacy assessments, especially among junior trainees.
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.