ArticleWorld journal of pediatrics : WJP2022
Performance of the PRISM I, PIM2, PELOD-2 and PRISM IV scoring systems in western China: a multicenter prospective study.
Article in World journal of pediatrics : WJP, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- [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
- Evaluating Trauma Scores for Mortality Prediction in Pediatric Patients.Turkish archives of 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
- The relationship between lactate/albumin ratio and prognosis in children with acute kidney injury.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the four scoring tools in predicting mortality in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in western China.
methodsThis was a multicenter, prospective, cohort study conducted in six PICUs in western China. The performances of the scoring systems were evaluated based on both discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for each model. Calibration was measured across defined groups based on mortality risk using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
resultsA total of 2034 patients were included in this study, of whom 127 (6.2%) died. For the entire cohort, AUCs for Pediatric Risk of Mortality Score (PRISM) I, Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM2), Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction Score-2 (PELOD-2) and PRISM IV were 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85-0.92], 0.84 (95% CI 0.80-0.88), 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.85), and 0.91 (95% CI 0.88-0.94), respectively. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit Chi-square value was 12.71 (P = 0.12) for PRISM I, 4.70 (P = 0.79) for PIM2, 205.98 (P < 0.001) for PELOD-2, and 7.50 (P = 0.48) for PRISM IV [degree of freedom (df) = 8]. The standardized mortality ratios obtained with the PRISM I, PIM2, PELOD-2, and PRISM IV models were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.75-1.01), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.85-1.12), 1.74 (95% CI, 1.58-1.92), and 1.05 (95% CI, 0.92-1.21), respectively.
conclusionsPRISM IV performed best and can be used as a prediction tool in PICUs in Western China. However, PRISM IV needs to be further validated in NICUs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36100796What 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.