ArticleAcute and critical care2022
Clinical implications of discrepancies in predicting pediatric mortality between Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2.
Article in Acute and critical care, 2022. 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.
- Survival Time and Determinants of Mortality Among Children Receiving Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Intensive Care Units at Selected Hospitals in Kigali, Rwanda - A Retrospective Follow-up Study.Pediatric health, medicine and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Characteristics and outcomes in severe and critically ill children with first wave SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection in Northeast China.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric Index of Mortality 3 (PIM 3) and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) are validated tools for predicting mortality in children. Research suggests that these tools may have different predictive performance depending on patient group characteristics. Therefore, we designed this study to identify the factors that make the mortality rates predicted by the tools different.
methodsThis retrospective study included patients (<18 years) who were admitted to a pediatric intensive care unit from July 2017 to May 2019. After defining the predicted mortality of PIM 3 minus the predicted mortality rate of PELOD-2 as "difference in mortality prediction," the clinical characteristics significantly related to this were analyzed using multivariable regression analysis. Predictive performance was analyzed through the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).
resultsIn total, 945 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 3.0 [0.0-8.0] years; girls, 44.7%) were analyzed. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test revealed AUROCs of 0.889 (χ2=10.187, P=0.313) and 0.731 (χ2=6.220, P=0.183) of PIM 3 and PELOD-2, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that oxygen saturation, partial pressure of CO2, base excess, platelet counts, and blood urea nitrogen levels were significant factors. Patient condition-related factors such as cardiac bypass surgery, seizures, cardiomyopathy or myocarditis, necrotizing enterocolitis, cardiac arrest, leukemia or lymphoma after the first induction, bone marrow transplantation, and liver failure were significantly related (P<0.001).
conclusionsBoth tools predicted observed mortality well; however, caution is needed in interpretation as they may show different prediction results in relation to specific clinical characteristics.
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.