↓ Skip to main content

Predictive models in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO): a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictive models in extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO): a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13643-023-02211-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Giordano, Andrea Francavilla, Tomaso Bottio, Andrea Dell’Amore, Dario Gregori, Paolo Navalesi, Giulia Lorenzoni, Ileana Baldi

Abstract

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been increasingly used in the last years to provide hemodynamic and respiratory support in critically ill patients. In this scenario, prognostic scores remain essential to choose which patients should initiate ECMO. This systematic review aims to assess the current landscape and inform subsequent efforts in the development of risk prediction tools for ECMO. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus were consulted. Articles between Jan 2011 and Feb 2022, including adults undergoing ECMO reporting a newly developed and validated predictive model for mortality, were included. Studies based on animal models, systematic reviews, case reports and conference abstracts were excluded. Data extraction aimed to capture study characteristics, risk model characteristics and model performance. The risk of bias was evaluated through the prediction model risk-of-bias assessment tool (PROBAST). The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/fevw5 ). Twenty-six prognostic scores for in-hospital mortality were identified, with a study size ranging from 60 to 4557 patients. The most common candidate variables were age, lactate concentration, creatinine concentration, bilirubin concentration and days in mechanical ventilation prior to ECMO. Five out of 16 venous-arterial (VA)-ECMO scores and 3 out of 9 veno-venous (VV)-ECMO scores had been validated externally. Additionally, one score was developed for both VA and VV populations. No score was judged at low risk of bias. Most models have not been validated externally and apply after ECMO initiation; thus, some uncertainty whether ECMO should be initiated still remains. It has yet to be determined whether and to what extent a new methodological perspective may enhance the performance of predictive models for ECMO, with the ultimate goal to implement a model that positively influences patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 10%
Librarian 1 10%
Unknown 8 80%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Unknown 8 80%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2023.
All research outputs
#16,107,597
of 24,508,104 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,666
of 2,131 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,428
of 410,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#29
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,508,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,131 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 410,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.