ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Multicenter validation of PIM3 and PIM2 in Brazilian pediatric intensive care units.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paediatric Index of Mortality 3 in Sweden: Validation and Recalibration to Improve Mortality Prediction in Paediatric Intensive Care.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2026Article
- Contemporary validation of a SAPS 3 customized version in patients admitted to Brazilian and Uruguayan intensive care units: a multicenter cohort study.Critical care science · 2026Observational
- Article
- Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV in Brazilian PICUs: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Severity of illness scores in the pediatric intensive care unit: a practical guide.Critical care science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To validate the PIM3 score in Brazilian PICUs and compare its performance with the PIM2. Methods: Observational, retrospective, multicenter study, including patients younger than 16 years old admitted consecutively from October 2013 to September 2019. We assessed the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR), the discrimination capability (using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve - AUROC), and the calibration. To assess the calibration, we used the calibration belt, which is a curve that represents the correlation of predicted and observed values and their 95% Confidence Interval (CI) through all the risk ranges. We also analyzed the performance of both scores in three periods: 2013-2015, 2015-2017, and 2017-2019. Results: 41,541 patients from 22 PICUs were included. Most patients aged less than 24 months (58.4%) and were admitted for medical conditions (88.6%) (respiratory conditions = 53.8%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was used in 5.8%. The median PICU length of stay was three days (IQR, 2-5), and the observed mortality was 1.8% (763 deaths). The predicted mortality by PIM3 was 1.8% (SMR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94-1.08) and by PIM2 was 2.1% (SMR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.96). Both scores had good discrimination (PIM3 AUROC = 0.88 and PIM2 AUROC = 0.89). In calibration analysis, both scores overestimated mortality in the 0%-3% risk range, PIM3 tended to underestimate mortality in medium-risk patients (9%-46% risk range), and PIM2 also overestimated mortality in high-risk patients (70%-100% mortality risk). Conclusions: Both scores had a good discrimination ability but poor calibration in different ranges, which deteriorated over time in the population studied.
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.