Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40567319›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2025

Comparative Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 in Critically Ill Children with Cancer: A Prospective Observational Study.

Kushal R Kalvit, Shilpushp J Bhosale, Jacob G Pulinilkunnathi, Swapna C Vijayakumaran, Anjana M Shrivastava, Atul P Kulkarni

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Incorporating Lung-involved Malignancies into Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Risk Models.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kushal R KalvitGuys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2166-4557
Shilpushp J BhosaleDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0290-0526
Jacob G PulinilkunnathiDepartment of Critical Care, Caritas Hospital Thellakom, Kottayam, Kerala, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8421-5476
Swapna C VijayakumaranDepartment of Critical Care Unit, Apollo Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0578-4081
Anjana M ShrivastavaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5984-1790
Atul P KulkarniDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Tata Memorial Centre, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5172-7619

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: In pediatric critical care, pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) and pediatric index of mortality (PIM) scoring systems are the most widely used severity of illness scoring systems. The current versions of these scoring systems (PRISM IV and PIM 3) have not been validated in critically ill oncology patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the comparative performance of PRISM IV and PIM 3 in critically ill children with cancer. Patients and methods: About 415 critically ill pediatric patients were recruited at a single-center, mixed medical-surgical ICU in a prospective observational study. Patients with an expected ICU stay of greater than 24 h were included. Demographic, physiological, and laboratory parameters required to calculate the PRISM IV and PIM 3 scores were collected; laboratory data from 2 hours prior to 4 hours after admission, and physiological data within 4 hours of admission were collected. The worst value was considered for calculating the scores. Both scores and their predicted mortality risk were calculated using online calculators. Results: The mortality at ICU discharge and at hospital discharge was 32.7% and 36.1%, respectively. For the prediction of hospital mortality, the AUROC for PRISM IV score was 0.71and the PIM 3 estimated mortality (%) was 0.78, respectively. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the PRISM IV score and PIM 3 estimated mortality (%) with the hospital mortality. The logistic model for PRISM IV score also passed the goodness-of-fit test indicating a good model fit. The goodness-of-fit test for the PIM 3 model suggests that the model may not fit the data well and may require further investigation or improvement. Conclusions: Both PRISM IV and PIM 3 scores showed acceptable discriminative ability between survivors and non-survivors in the critically ill pediatric oncology population. However, only the PRISM IV score showed good calibration in the prediction of survival. How to cite this article: Kalvit KR, Bhosale SJ, Pulinilkunnathi JG, Vijayakumaran SC, Shrivastava AM, Kulkarni AP. 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 J Crit Care Med 2025;29(6):486-491.

Indexed as

MortalityPediatric intensive carePediatric oncologyPIM 3PRISM IVProspective observational studyScoring methods

Identifiers

PMID40567319
PMCPMC12186081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.