ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
[Performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 in a pediatric intensive care unit].
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The magnitude of pediatric mortality and determinant factors in intensive care units in a low-resource country, Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- 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
- Validation of Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 for Predicting Mortality among Patients Admitted to a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.Acute and critical care · 2018Article
- Assessment of PIM-2 performance among surgical patients with heart disease and correlation of results with RACHS-1.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensivaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the discrimination and calibration of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 in patients admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit.
methodsThe study was conducted with a contemporary cohort from November 2005 to November 2006. Patients aged 29 days to 18 years were included in the study. Patients who died within 12 hours of admission and cases of readmission were excluded from the study. The performance of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 was assessed by means of the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, the standardized mortality ratio and the area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with 95% confidence interval. The significance level was established as 5%.
resultsA total of 276 admissions to the pediatric intensive care unit were included in the analysis. The mortality rate was 14.13%, and the efficiency of admission 0.88%. The median age of the sample was 42.22 months, and most participants were male (60.1%). Most admissions were referrals from the emergency department. The mean duration of stay in pediatric intensive care unit was 6.43±5.23 days. Approximately 72.46% of admissions were for clinical reasons and exhibited an association with the outcome death (odds ratio: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.09-7.74; p=0.017). Calibration of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 with the chi-square statistic was 12.2686 (p=0.1396) in the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, and the standardized mortality ratio was 1.0. The area under the ROC curve assessing model discrimination was 0.778.
conclusionPediatric Index of Mortality 2 exhibited satisfactory performance.
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.