Skip to main content

Table 3 Evidence quality of included SRs

From: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation technology for adults: an evidence mapping based on systematic reviews

Study

Design

Risk of bias

Consistency

Directness

Imprecision

Reporting bias

Strength

Gradient

Confounding

Overall confidence

Munshi, 2019 [31]

RCT, observational study

0

0

0

0

0

0

 + 1

0

moderate

Shrestha, 2022 [38]

RCT, retrospective study, prospective observational study, cohort study

0

− 1

0

0

0

0

0

0

very low

Tillmann, 2017 [27]

RCT, cohort study

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

low

Mendes Pedro Vitale, 2019 [30]

RCT

0

0

0

0

-1

0

0

0

moderate

Alain Combes, 2020 [32]

RCT

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

high

Zhu, 2021 [36]

RCT, retrospective or prospective cohort study

0

0

0

0

0

 + 1

0

0

moderate

Munshi, 2014 [24]

RCT, observational study

0

− 1

0

− 1

0

0

0

0

very low

Mitchell, 2010 [22]

RCT, cohort study

− 1

− 1

0

− 1

0

0

0

0

very low

Alberto Zangrillo, 2013 [23]

Observational study

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

low

Alshamsi Fayez, 2020 [34]

RCT

0

0

0

− 1

0

0

0

0

moderate

Ouweneel Dagmar, 2016 [26]

Cohort study

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

low

Beyea, 2018 [28]

Case series, cohort study

− 1

− 1

0

0

0

 + 1

0

0

very low

Twohig, 2019 [29]

Retrospective or prospective observational study

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

low

Miraglia, 2020 [33]

Cohort study

0

0

0

0

0

 + 1

0

0

moderate

Miraglia, 2020 [35]

Cohort study, case–control study

0

0

0

− 1

0

0

0

0

very low

Scquizzato, 2022 [37]

RCT, observational study

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

low

Ahn Chiwon, 2016 [25]

Retrospective or prospective cohort study

0

− 1

0

− 1

0

 + 1

0

0

very low