ArticlePeerJ2020
Comparison of pediatric scoring systems for mortality in septic patients and the impact of missing information on their predictive power: a retrospective analysis.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Criteria for Pediatric Sepsis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Pediatric Sepsis Definition Taskforce.Critical care medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis for the Prediction of Mortality Rates in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Using Different Scores: PRISM-III/IV, PIM-3, and PELOD-2.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Secondary hypoalbuminemia is independently associated with in-hospital mortality in children withAnnals of medicine · 2026Article
- Utilizing Machine Learning for Diagnostic Assistance of Pediatric Sepsis and Septic Shock in Resource-Limited Settings.Pediatric reports · 2026Article
- Base deficit and alactic base excess are promising early biological markers in pediatric sepsis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Article
- Comparison of Phoenix Sepsis Score and traditional scoring systems in predicting mortality in PICU patients with suspected infection.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- [Prognostic value of critical illness scores and the ratio of neutrophil count to lymphocyte and platelet count for predicting 28-day mortality in pediatric sepsis].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2026Article
- Article
- Can PIM3 predict mortality adequately for patients admitted to Pediatric Intensive Care Unit in a resource limited setting? A single-center study.BMC pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Serum amyloid A and proadrenomedullin as early markers in critically ill children with sepsis.Clinical and experimental pediatrics · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 in Critically Ill Children with Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV in Brazilian PICUs: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Clinical features analysis for complications in infants with late-onset Group B streptococcal sepsis: a retrospective case-control study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Performance of Pediatric Index of Mortality PIM-3 in a Tertiary Care PICU in India.Journal of pediatric intensive care · 2024Article
- High Dependency Units (HDUs) in Pediatrics: Need of the Hour in Resource-Limited Settings.Cureus · 2024Article
- Inherent Bias in Electronic Health Records: A Scoping Review of Sources of Bias.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- Predicting functional and quality-of-life outcomes following pediatric sepsis: performance of PRISM-III and PELOD-2.Pediatric research · 2023Article
- The Various Scoring Systems in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Prospective Observational Study.Cureus · 2023Article
- Vascular Reactivity Index and PELOD-2 as a mortality predictor in paediatric septic shock: a single-centre retrospective study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
- Clinical implications of discrepancies in predicting pediatric mortality between Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2.Acute and critical care · 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
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScores can assess the severity and course of disease and predict outcome in an objective manner. This information is needed for proper risk assessment and stratification. Furthermore, scoring systems support optimal patient care, resource management and are gaining in importance in terms of artificial intelligence.
objectiveThis study evaluated and compared the prognostic ability of various common pediatric scoring systems (PRISM, PRISM III, PRISM IV, PIM, PIM2, PIM3, PELOD, PELOD 2) in order to determine which is the most applicable score for pediatric sepsis patients in terms of timing of disease survey and insensitivity to missing data.
methodsWe retrospectively examined data from 398 patients under 18 years of age, who were diagnosed with sepsis. Scores were assessed at ICU admission and re-evaluated on the day of peak C-reactive protein. The scores were compared for their ability to predict mortality in this specific patient population and for their impairment due to missing data.
resultsPIM (AUC 0.76 (0.68-0.76)), PIM2 (AUC 0.78 (0.72-0.78)) and PIM3 (AUC 0.76 (0.68-0.76)) scores together with PRSIM III (AUC 0.75 (0.68-0.75)) and PELOD 2 (AUC 0.75 (0.66-0.75)) are the most suitable scores for determining patient prognosis at ICU admission. Once sepsis is pronounced, PELOD 2 (AUC 0.84 (0.77-0.91)) and PRISM IV (AUC 0.8 (0.72-0.88)) become significantly better in their performance and count among the best prognostic scores for use at this time together with PRISM III (AUC 0.81 (0.73-0.89)). PELOD 2 is good for monitoring and, like the PIM scores, is also largely insensitive to missing values.
conclusionOverall, PIM scores show comparatively good performance, are stable as far as timing of the disease survey is concerned, and they are also relatively stable in terms of missing parameters. PELOD 2 is best suitable for monitoring clinical course.
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.