OBJECTIVE: External validation of the paediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score in two paediatric intensive care units (PICU) in South America. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study including all PICU admissions from July 2003 to December 2004 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and from January 2004 to December 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The data collected included demographic variables, diagnosis, need for mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay and mortality, and the 12 variables in the PELOD score. For each PELOD score variable, the worst daily value and the worst value of the whole PICU stay were used for the daily PELOD (dPELOD) and PELOD scores, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,476 admissions (51.3% from Argentina and 48.7% from Brazil) were analysed. Observed and predicted mortality were, respectively, 4.7% and 6.6%, with a standardized mortality ratio of 0.72. The score showed excellent discrimination capacity, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93 (0.88-0.98). The dPELOD score on days 1-5 also showed good discrimination capacities, with areas under the ROC curve >0.85. However, PELOD and dPELOD scores showed poor calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (chi-square 72.3, p < 0.001). This poor calibration was explained by a deficiency in the PELOD score where it fails to identify two risk intervals; 3.1-16.2% and 40-80%. CONCLUSIONS: The PELOD score is reproducible, has excellent discrimination, but over-predicts mortality and has poor calibration. Although the lack of calibration may not invalidate the score, the PELOD score is a discontinuous variable and we advise careful consideration when using it as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.
OBJECTIVE: External validation of the paediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score in two paediatric intensive care units (PICU) in South America. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study including all PICU admissions from July 2003 to December 2004 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and from January 2004 to December 2004 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The data collected included demographic variables, diagnosis, need for mechanical ventilation, length of PICU stay and mortality, and the 12 variables in the PELOD score. For each PELOD score variable, the worst daily value and the worst value of the whole PICU stay were used for the daily PELOD (dPELOD) and PELOD scores, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,476 admissions (51.3% from Argentina and 48.7% from Brazil) were analysed. Observed and predicted mortality were, respectively, 4.7% and 6.6%, with a standardized mortality ratio of 0.72. The score showed excellent discrimination capacity, with an area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93 (0.88-0.98). The dPELOD score on days 1-5 also showed good discrimination capacities, with areas under the ROC curve >0.85. However, PELOD and dPELOD scores showed poor calibration with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (chi-square 72.3, p < 0.001). This poor calibration was explained by a deficiency in the PELOD score where it fails to identify two risk intervals; 3.1-16.2% and 40-80%. CONCLUSIONS: The PELOD score is reproducible, has excellent discrimination, but over-predicts mortality and has poor calibration. Although the lack of calibration may not invalidate the score, the PELOD score is a discontinuous variable and we advise careful consideration when using it as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials.
Authors: Adrienne G Randolph; Kathleen L Meert; Mary E O'Neil; James H Hanson; Peter M Luckett; John H Arnold; Rainer G Gedeit; Peter N Cox; Joan S Roberts; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Peter W Forbes; Ira M Cheifetz Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S E Bleeker; H A Moll; E W Steyerberg; A R T Donders; G Derksen-Lubsen; D E Grobbee; K G M Moons Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Stéphane Leteurtre; Alain Martinot; Alain Duhamel; François Proulx; Bruno Grandbastien; Jacques Cotting; Ronald Gottesman; Ari Joffe; Jurg Pfenninger; Philippe Hubert; Jacques Lacroix; Francis Leclerc Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-07-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Robert S Ream; Kevin Mackey; Terry Leet; M Christine Green; Teresa L Andreone; Laura L Loftis; Robert E Lynch Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Rebecca M Lombel; Mallika Kommareddi; Theresa Mottes; David T Selewski; Yong Y Han; Debbie S Gipson; Katherine L Collins; Michael Heung Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-02-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: George P Liao; Matthew T Harting; Robert A Hetz; Peter A Walker; Shinil K Shah; Christopher J Corkins; Travis G Hughes; Fernando Jimenez; Steven C Kosmach; Mary-Clare Day; KuoJen Tsao; Dean A Lee; Laura L Worth; James E Baumgartner; Charles S Cox Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Lauren E Marsillio; Lisa A Asaro; Vijay Srinivasan; David Wypij; Lauren R Sorce; Michael S D Agus; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Maria Grazia Sacco Casamassima; Jose H Salazar; Dominic Papandria; James Fackler; Kristin Chrouser; Emily F Boss; Fizan Abdullah Journal: Eur J Pediatr Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 3.183
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-02-03 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Azza Abd Elkader El Hamshary; Seham Awad El Sherbini; HebatAllah Fadel Elgebaly; Samah Abdelkrim Amin Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2017 Apr-Jun