ArticleCroatian medical journal2026
Healthcare professionals' views on training, standards, and resources for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Croatian medical journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: investing in training of multidisciplinary teams and developing health care infrastructure.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
- Healthcare professionals' views on training, standards, and resources for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a letter to the editor.Croatian medical journal · 2026Article
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
aimTo assess health care professionals' knowledge and opinions regarding extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use, training, standards, and resource availability.
methodsThis cross-sectional study employed an online self-administered survey to evaluate health care professionals' knowledge and opinions concerning ECMO procedures. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and open-ended questions inquiring about demographics, ECMO practices, training and certification experiences, ECMO use during the COVID-19 pandemic, and obstacles to ECMO implementation.
resultsThe study enrolled 89 health care professionals from 12 countries. The respondents were most frequently from Kazakhstan (67.4%), Turkey (5.6%), Croatia (5.6%), and Ukraine (5.6%). Notably, 61.8% of respondents supported ECMO procedures performed by certified specialists. The respondents believed that the main ECMO indications were respiratory failure (83.1%), cardiopulmonary failure (69.6%), heart and lung transplantation (64.1%), and cardiogenic shock (58.4%). Major obstacles to ECMO implementation were reported to be high costs (53.9%), inadequately qualified staff (52.8% for physicians, 41.6% for nurses), and restricted availability of ECMO devices (42.7%).
conclusionThe findings emphasize the need for standardized training, wider availability of ECMO standards, and efforts to address resource-related barriers to ECMO access. Our results primarily reflect practices in Kazakhstan and should be interpreted in light of the study's restricted geographical coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41520203PMC12836024What 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.