ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of PRISM III, PIM 2, and PELOD Scores as Predictors of Outcome in Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Patients: An Experience From a Single Center in South Gujarat, India.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo assess and compare Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III), Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM 2), and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD) scores for predicting mortality in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) setting. DESIGN AND
settingA cross-sectional, hospital-based, analytical observational study conducted in an eight-bed PICU.
methodsPICU patients between the ages of 1 month and 17 years fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in this study. PIM 2 score was calculated within the first hour of admission; PRISM III and PELOD scores were calculated at 24 hours. Outcomes of survival or non-survival were recorded. Scoring system performance was assessed using indices of discrimination and calibration. Predictive accuracy for mortality was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, and calibration between predicted and observed mortality was examined using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test.
resultsData from 138 patients were analyzed (M: F=0.8:1) with a mean age of 62.5 months and a median of 24 months. Respiratory ailments were the highest (46.4%), followed by central nervous system diseases (18.1%), and overall mortality was 20.3%. Area under the ROC curve was 0.984 for PRISM III, 0.836 for PIM 2, and 0.872 for PELOD. PRISM III was a better predictor of mortality risk, followed by PIM 2 and PELOD. The goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration for all three scores, but PRISM III had the better power compared to PIM 2 and PELOD.
conclusionIn our PICU setting, the PRISM III score was a better predictor of mortality risk, and the performance of PELOD was the least.
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.