ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
ECMO in hinterland-feasibility and challenges (case-based narrative review).
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is one of the most advanced forms of cardiopulmonary support used for severe respiratory and/or cardiac failure when other conventional treatments are not optimal. However, the practice or use of ECMO remains predominant in tertiary centres due to its resource-intensive nature (human, skill, technical, and financial), thereby limiting access in peripheral and resource-constrained regions. So, this narrative review examines the feasibility and challenges of establishing ECMO services in such settings (described as the hinterland) through three major models: outreach ECMO programmes, hub-and-spoke systems, and tele-ECMO networks. Previous reviews have discussed ECMO organisation, transport, and regionalisation in general. Few have addressed the practical question of which ECMO model a hinterland hospital should choose and when. This review aims to fill that gap by directly comparing three practical models. Using case-based discussions and available literature, the review outlines the common foundational requirements for safe ECMO delivery, including infrastructure, logistics, multidisciplinary teamwork, transport preparedness, ethical governance, and protocol standardisation. It explores the advantages and disadvantages of each model, with a focus on components such as early referral, expert oversight, safe interfacility transfer, and a viable long-term partnership between peripheral and expert ECMO centres to improve patient outcomes. The review discusses ethical and financial aspects of ECMO program. It specifically explores the future role of telemedicine, artificial intelligence, and digital connectivity in expanding ECMO across all areas. To conclude, the review demonstrates that, with proposed models of structured systems and appropriate training, ECMO can be safely extended to unexplored regions while maintaining quality and patient safety.
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.