Long-Term Quality of Life After Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in ARDS Survivors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is an increasingly prevalent treatment for acute respiratory failure (ARF). To evaluate the impact of ECMO support on long-term outcomes for critically ill adults with ARF. METHODS: We searched electronic databases 1948 through to November 30 2016; selected controlled trials or observational studies of critically ill adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome, examining long-term morbidity specifically health-related quality of life (HRQL); 2 authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. ANALYSIS: Of the 633 citations, 1 randomized controlled trial and 5 observational studies met the selection criteria. Overall quality of observational studies was moderate to high (mean score on Newcastle-Ottawa scale, 7.2/9; range, 6-8). In 3 studies (n = 245), greater decrements in HRQL were seen for survivors of ECMO when compared to survivors of conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV) as measured by the Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores ([ECMO-CMV]: 5.40 [95% confidence interval, CI, 4.11 to 6.68]). As compared to CMV survivors, those who received ECMO experienced significantly less psychological morbidity (2 studies; n = 217 [ECMO-CMV]: mean weighted difference [MWD], -1.31 [95% CI, -1.98 to -0.64] for depression and MWD, -1.60 [95% CI, -1.80 to -1.39] for anxiety). CONCLUSIONS: Further studies are required to confirm findings and determine prognostic factors associated with more favorable outcomes in survivors of ECMO.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".