Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28383407›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2017

Comparison of the pediatric risk of mortality, pediatric index of mortality, and pediatric index of mortality 2 models in a pediatric intensive care unit in China: A validation study.

Jun Qiu, Xiulan Lu, Kewei Wang, Yimin Zhu, Chao Zuo, Zhenghui Xiao

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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.

Jun QiuDepartment of Children's Intensive Research Center, Hunan Children's Hospital, Changsha, China.
Xiulan Lu
Kewei Wang
Yimin Zhu
Chao Zuo
Zhenghui Xiao

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was designed with the aim of comparing the performances of the pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM), pediatric index of mortality (PIM), and revised version pediatric index of mortality 2 (PIM2) models in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) in China.A total of 852 critically ill pediatric patients were recruited in the study between January 1 and December 31, 2014. The variables required to calculate PRISM, PIM, and PIM2 were collected. Mode l performance was evaluated by assessing the calibration and discrimination. Discrimination between death and survival was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration across deciles of risk was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit χ test.Of the 852 patients enrolled in this study, 745 patients survived until the end of the PICU stay (107 patients died, 12.56%). The AUCs (95% confidence intervals, CI) were 0.729 (0.670-0.788) for PRISM, 0.721 (0.667-0.776) for PIM, and 0.726 (0.671-0.781) for PIM2. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed a chi-square of 7.26 (P = 0.51, v = 10) for PRISM, 26.28 (P = 0.0009, v = 10) for PIM, and 10.28 (P = 0.21, v = 10) for PIM2. The standardized mortality rate was 1.14 (95%CI: 0.93-1.36) for PRISM, 1.89 (95%CI: 1.55-2.27) for PIM, and 2.13 (95%CI: 1.75-2.55) for PIM2.The PRISM, PIM, and PIM2 scores demonstrated an acceptable discriminatory performance. With the exception of PIM, the PRISM and PIM2 models had good calibrations.

Indexed as

Child MortalityModels, TheoreticalChildChild, PreschoolChinaCritical IllnessFemaleHumansInfantIntensive Care Units, PediatricMale

Identifiers

PMID28383407
PMCPMC5411191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.