Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22569555›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine2012

International comparison of the performance of the paediatric index of mortality (PIM) 2 score in two national data sets.

Stéphane Leteurtre, Bruno Grandbastien, Francis Leclerc, Roger Parslow, Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et Urgences Pédiatriques, Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Predictive Efficacy of Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 Score in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit of Rural Hospital.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 · 2016
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stéphane LeteurtrePaediatric Intensive Care Unit, Jeanne de Flandre University Hospital, 59037 Lille Cedex, France. stephane.leteurtre@chru-lille.fr
Bruno Grandbastien
Francis Leclerc
Roger Parslow
Groupe Francophone de Réanimation et Urgences Pédiatriques
Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo test the performance of PIM2 in French-speaking (FS) paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and its relative performance when recalibrated using data from FS and Great Britain (GB) PICUs of different size.

methodsConsecutive admissions to 15 FS (n = 5,602) and 31 GB PICUs (n = 20,693) from June 2006 to October 2007 were included. The recalibrated PIM2 were applied to PICUs of different size within the FS and GB PICUs and between the two groups. PICU size was defined using number of admissions/month. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and the goodness-of-fit test, respectively. Logistic regression, funnel plots and standardized W scores were performed in the two groups and between different PICU sizes.

resultsIn FS PICUs, the original PIM2 had good discrimination (AUC = 0.85) and moderate calibration (p = 0.07). The recalibrated PIM2 scores had good calibration in FS (p = 0.33) and moderate calibration in GB (p = 0.06). Calibration was poor when the recalibrated FS PIM2 was applied to GB (p = 0.02) but good when the GB recalibration was applied to the FS (p = 0.36). Using the original PIM2 coefficients, calibration was poor in large units in both groups but improved following recalibration. There were no effects of PICU size on risk-adjusted mortality in GB and a significant effect in the FS PICUs with a minimum risk-adjusted mortality at about 35 admissions/month.

conclusionThe PIM2 score was valid in the FS population. The recalibration based on GB data could be applied to FS PICUs. Such recalibration may facilitate comparisons between countries.

Indexed as

Child MortalityHospital MortalitySeverity of Illness IndexChildEuropeHumansIntensive Care Units, PediatricLogistic ModelsPatient AdmissionPrognosisProspective StudiesRisk AdjustmentRisk AssessmentROC Curve

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.