The Performance of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Various Viral Pneumonia Pandemics: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the effects of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and routine mechanical ventilation on mortality and the risk of associated adverse events in patients with severe viral pneumonia. Methods: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and other databases were searched to collect case-control or cohort studies on prognoses associated with ECMO treatment for viral pneumonia. Search terms included extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, ECMO, viral pneumonia, COVID-19, influenza, MERS, and others. According to the PICOS principle, two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted the data, cross-checked the data, and extracted the data again. Two researchers evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and cross-checked the results. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Nine studies were included for analysis, encompassing a total of 4,330 patients, which were categorized into ECMO and CMV groups. There were no significant differences between the two groups in most baseline data; however, the ECMO group had a lower oxygenation index, and some studies reported higher SOFA scores in the ECMO group compared to the CMV group. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups. The length of ICU stay, total hospital stay, and total mechanical ventilation time were longer in the ECMO group than in the CMV group. In terms of adverse events, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of kidney injury between the two groups. Bleeding events were reported in two studies, with more bleeding events occurring in the ECMO group. According to the subgroup analysis of different virus types, there were no statistical differences in the above aspects among patients with swine flu, novel coronavirus, and MERS. Conclusion: ECMO has a certain degree of positive significance in the treatment of severe viral pneumonia, but there is no significant difference in the treatment outcome of ECMO across different epidemic periods. The timing of ECMO treatment, patient management, and withdrawal evaluation still need further research.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".