MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415732087 · doi:10.21037/jtd-2025-543

The hospital length of stay and mortality and its risk and protective factors among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4415732087 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiejuan Zhang, Jing Pan, Xifeng Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsARDSAcute respiratory distressExtracorporeal membrane oxygenationMortality rateMEDLINEExtracorporeal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as an advanced therapeutic option for managing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially severe cases of ARDS. However, the mortality remains high among these patients. Therefore, this meta-analysis aims to evaluate the mortality rates and its potential risk and protective factors in ARDS patients receiving ECMO support. Methods: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for relevant studies from their respective inception to April 27, 2024. STATA 16 was used for data analysis. The quality of the included studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: A total of 70 studies involving 31,666 ARDS patients were included. The overall mortality was 48% in ARDS patients receiving ECMO support, especially high in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS patients (60%), and the average hospital length of stay (LOS) of survivors [standardized mean difference (SMD) =0.84, 95% CI: 0.30-1.38] was significantly longer than non-survivors. Moreover, the results showed that age [odds ratio (OR) =1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.03], body mass index (BMI) [hazard ratio (HR) =0.96, 95% CI: 0.9-0.98], Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR =1.05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.08), ECMO driving pressure (OR =1.07, 95% CI: 1.05-1.10), immunocompromised status (OR =1.07, 95% CI: 1.05-1.09), and total respiratory rate from days 1 to 3 on ECMO (OR =1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.08) were all significant predictors for mortality. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the intricate factors influencing mortality rate in ARDS patients on ECMO. The influencing factors for mortality should be further explored in the future, which may help reduce the global burden of ARDS.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.039
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic DiseaseSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207