ArticleHealth science reports2023
Pediatric prognostic models predicting inhospital child mortality in resource-limited settings: An external validation study.
Article in Health science reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- External Validation of Pediatric Pneumonia and Bronchiolitis Risk Scores to Predict Mortality in Children Hospitalized in Kenya: A Retrospective Cohort Study.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Narrative review of clinical prediction models for paediatric community acquired pneumonia.Paediatric respiratory reviews · 2025Review
- Pediatric prognostic models predicting inhospital child mortality in resource-limited settings: An external validation study.Health science reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Prognostic models provide evidence-based predictions and estimates of future outcomes, facilitating decision-making, patient care, and research. A few of these models have been externally validated, leading to uncertain reliability and generalizability. This study aims to externally validate four models to assess their transferability and usefulness in clinical practice. The models include the respiratory index of severity in children (RISC)-Malawi model and three other models by Lowlavaar et al. Methods: The study used data from the Clinical Information Network (CIN) to validate the four models where the primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. 163,329 patients met eligibility criteria. Missing data were imputed, and the logistic function was used to compute predicted risk of in-hospital mortality. Models' discriminatory ability and calibration were determined using area under the curve (AUC), calibration slope, and intercept. Results: The RISC-Malawi model had 50,669 pneumonia patients who met the eligibility criteria, of which the case-fatality ratio was 4406 (8.7%). Its AUC was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.77-0.78), whereas the calibration slope was 1.04 (95% CI: 1.00 -1.06), and calibration intercept was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84). Regarding the external validation of Lowlavaar et al. models, 10,782 eligible patients were included, with an in-hospital mortality rate of 5.3%. The primary model's AUC was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.72-0.77), the calibration slope was 0.78 (95% CI: 0.71-0.84), and the calibration intercept was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.28-0.46). All models markedly underestimated the risk of mortality. Conclusion: All externally validated models exhibited either underestimation or overestimation of the risk as judged from calibration statistics. Hence, applying these models with confidence in settings other than their original development context may not be advisable. Our findings strongly suggest the need for recalibrating these model to enhance their generalizability.
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.