ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of Phoenix Sepsis Score and traditional scoring systems in predicting mortality in PICU patients with suspected infection.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis is a major contributor to mortality in pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Timely and accurate risk stratification in children with sepsis is essential to guide clinical management. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the ability of the Phoenix Sepsis Score (PSS), Phoenix-8 score, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, Pediatric Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (pSOFA), Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 (PELOD-2) score, and Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III) score to predict in-hospital mortality among PICU patients with suspected infection in low- and middle-income countries. We conducted a prospective, single-center cohort study of children admitted to the PICU with suspected infection. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. We assessed scoring system discrimination by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and evaluated calibration using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test. Among 519 eligible children, 32 in-hospital deaths occurred (6.2%). The median time to death was 4 days (IQR, 1–9). For mortality prediction, the AUCs were 0.86 (95% CI, 0.77–0.95) for PSS, 0.89 (95% CI，0.82–0.95) for Phoenix-8, 0.73 (95% CI，0.63 –0.83) for SIRS, 0.87 (95% CI，0.79–0.94) for pSOFA, 0.90 (95% CI，0.85–0.96) for PELOD-2, and 0.89 (95% CI，0.82–0.97) for PRISM III. PSS exceeded SIRS and was comparable to pSOFA for in-hospital mortality prediction, while Phoenix-8, PELOD-2, and PRISM III showed higher AUCs. For the combined outcome of early death (within 72 h of PICU admission) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use, PSS showed similar performance to pSOFA, Phoenix-8, and PELOD-2. No significant miscalibration was observed across scoring systems. PSS demonstrated good discriminatory ability in identifying high-risk patients for mortality in the context of low- and middle-income countries. It is suitable for the early identification of adverse outcomes in PICU patients with infections.
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.