ArticlePerfusion2021
External validation of the Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Prediction model for risk adjusting mortality.
Article in Perfusion, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hemostatic complications and systemic heparinization in pediatric post-cardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation failed to wean from cardiopulmonary bypass.Translational pediatrics · 2022Article
- Mortality prediction in pediatric postcardiotomy veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: A comparison of scoring systems.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Pediatric Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Prediction (PEP) model was created to provide risk stratification for all pediatric patients requiring extracorporeal life support (ECLS). Our purpose was to externally validate the model using contemporaneous cases submitted to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry.
methodsThis multicenter, retrospective analysis included pediatric patients (<19 years) during their initial ECLS run for all indications between January 2012 and September 2014. Median values from the BATE dataset for activated partial thromboplastin time and internationalized normalized ratio were used as surrogates as these were missing in the ELSO group. Model discrimination was evaluated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and goodness-of-fit was evaluated using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test.
resultsA total of 4,342 patients in the ELSO registry were compared to 514 subjects from the bleeding and thrombosis on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (BATE) dataset used to develop the PEP model. Overall mortality was similar (42% ELSO vs. 45% BATE). The c-statistic after external validation decreased from 0.75 to 0.64 and model calibration decreases most in the highest risk deciles.
conclusionDiscrimination of the PEP model remains modest after external validation using the largest pediatric ECLS cohort. While the model overestimates mortality for the highest risk patients, it remains the only prediction model applicable to both neonates and pediatric patients who require ECLS for any indication and thus maintains potential for application in research and quality benchmarking.
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.