ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2011
Validation of Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 in three pediatric intensive care units in Hong Kong.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of an Electronic Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 Score in a Mixed Quaternary PICU.Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies · 2020Observational
- Performance of Three Mortality Prediction Scores and Evaluation of Important Determinants in Eight Pediatric Intensive Care Units in China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Validation of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 in a Single Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Article
- Illness severity and organ dysfunction scoring in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2016Review
- Critical Analysis of PIM2 Score Applicability in a Tertiary Care PICU in Western India.International journal of pediatrics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the probabilities of death predicted by Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2) and Pediatric Index of Mortality 1 (PIM1) models against actual mortalities in 3 pediatric intensive care units in Hong Kong.
methodsAll consecutive patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units in 3 regional non-teaching hospitals between Jan 2006 and December 2006 were included. The data required for PIM1 and PIM2 were collected. The probabilities of death predicted by PIM1 and PIM2 were validated against the actual probability of mortality.
resultsOf the 540 patients were included in this study, only seven deaths were observed (1.3%). PIM 1 and PIM 2 overestimated the mortality rate by giving a greater mortality rate. (PIM1: 13.4, Standardized mortality ratio = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.91; PIM2: 14.2, Standardized mortality ratio =0.49, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.86) The discrimination of PIM1 and PIM2 were satisfactory as reflected by area under receiver-operator characteristic curve of 0.889 (95% CI: 0.703 to 1.000) and 0.904 (95% CI: 0.738 to 1.000) respectively. Calibration was not possible due to insufficient death cases.
conclusionsThe current study showed that PIM2 and PIM1 had similar accuracy in mortality prediction in Hong Kong. The current study also demonstrated the difficulty to calibrate the mortality model when actual mortality rate is low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.