ReviewCureus2024
Prone Positioning During Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The available literature has furnished substantial evidence indicating the favorable outcomes of prone positioning (PP) on oxygenation parameters among patients afflicted with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, there is a notable disparity in the reported influence of PP on the overall outcomes of COVID-19 patients undergoing venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) across studies. This article has been prepared in adherence with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were utilized for data retrieval. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the cumulative survival rate among COVID-19 patients receiving V-V ECMO, comparing those who received PP to those who did not. Secondary endpoints included the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ECMO duration, and mechanical ventilation duration. A total of 15 studies involving 2286 patients were analyzed in the meta-analysis. PP significantly improved the cumulative survival rate (0.48, 95% CI: 0.40-0.55); risk ratio (RR) of 1.24 (95% CI: 1.11-1.38).PP during ECMO for COVID-19 patients yielded favorable outcomes in terms of 60-day survival, 90-day survival, ICU survival, and hospital survival. In contrast, patients who underwent PP had longer ECMO duration (8.1 days, 95% CI: 6.2-9.9, p<0.001) and mechanical ventilation duration (9.6 days, 95% CI: 8.0-11.2, p<0.001). PP demonstrated improved survival in COVID-19 patients with ARDS receiving V-V ECMO. However, additional well-designed prospective trials are warranted to further explore the effects of this combination on survival outcomes in COVID-19 patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.