The impact of selection criteria and study design on reported survival outcomes in extracorporeal oxygenation cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) during cardiac arrest (ECPR) has increased exponentially. However, reported outcomes vary considerably due to differing study designs and selection criteria. This review assessed the impact of pre-defined selection criteria on ECPR survival. Methods Systematic review applying PRISMA guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews for RCTs and observational studies published from January 2000 to June 2021. Adult patients (> 12 years) receiving ECPR were included. Two investigators reviewed and extracted data on study design, number and type of inclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcomes included overall and neurologically favourable survival. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results 67 studies were included: 14 prospective and 53 retrospective. No RCTs were identified at time of search. The number of inclusion criteria to select ECPR patients (p = 0.292) and study design (p = 0.962) was not associated with higher favourable neurological survival. However, amongst prospective studies, increased number of inclusion criteria was associated with improved outcomes in both OHCA and IHCA cohorts. (β = 0.12, p = 0.026) and arrest to ECMO flow time was predictive of survival. (β = -0.023, p
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 | 0.070 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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".