Jean-Pierre Gonçalves1,2, Milton Severo3,4, Carla Rocha5, Joana Jardim6, Teresa Mota7, Augusto Ribeiro8. 1. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Integrated Hospital, São João Hospital, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. pierre_3.14r@hotmail.com. 2. Life and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Health Sciences, University of Minho, Braga and ICVS-3Bs, PT Government Associate Laboratory, Braga, Guimarães, Portugal. pierre_3.14r@hotmail.com. 3. Institute of Public Health, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. milton@med.up.pt. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Predictive Medicine and Public Health and Cardiovascular Research & Development Unit, University of Porto Medical School, Porto, Portugal. milton@med.up.pt. 5. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Integrated Hospital, São João Hospital, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. carlamrocha@sapo.pt. 6. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Integrated Hospital, São João Hospital, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. joanajardim@sapo.pt. 7. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Integrated Hospital, São João Hospital, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. teresaraquelsousa@gmail.com. 8. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Pediatric Integrated Hospital, São João Hospital, Alameda Professor Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319, Porto, Portugal. augusto.ribeiro@hsjoao.min-saude.pt.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The study aims were to compare two models (The Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III) and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2)) for prediction of mortality in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and recalibrate PELOD-2 in a Portuguese population. To achieve the previous goal, a prospective cohort study to evaluate score performance (standardized mortality ratio, discrimination, and calibration) for both models was performed. A total of 556 patients consecutively admitted to our PICU between January 2011 and December 2012 were included in the analysis. The median age was 65 months, with an interquartile range of 1 month to 17 years. The male-to-female ratio was 1.5. The median length of PICU stay was 3 days. The overall predicted number of deaths using PRISM III score was 30.8 patients whereas that by PELOD-2 was 22.1 patients. The observed mortality was 29 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the two models was 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed a good calibration only for PRISM III (PRISM III: χ (2) = 3.820, p = 0.282; PELOD-2: χ (2) = 9.576, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Both scores had good discrimination. PELOD-2 needs recalibration to be a better reliable prediction tool. WHAT IS KNOWN: • PRISM III (Pediatric Risk of Mortality III) and PELOD (Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction) scores are frequently used to assess the performance of intensive care units and also for mortality prediction in the pediatric population. • Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 is the newer version of PELOD and has recently been validated with good discrimination and calibration. What is New: • In our population, both scores had good discrimination. • PELOD-2 needs recalibration to be a better reliable prediction tool.
UNLABELLED: The study aims were to compare two models (The Pediatric Risk of Mortality III (PRISM III) and Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2)) for prediction of mortality in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and recalibrate PELOD-2 in a Portuguese population. To achieve the previous goal, a prospective cohort study to evaluate score performance (standardized mortality ratio, discrimination, and calibration) for both models was performed. A total of 556 patients consecutively admitted to our PICU between January 2011 and December 2012 were included in the analysis. The median age was 65 months, with an interquartile range of 1 month to 17 years. The male-to-female ratio was 1.5. The median length of PICU stay was 3 days. The overall predicted number of deaths using PRISM III score was 30.8 patients whereas that by PELOD-2 was 22.1 patients. The observed mortality was 29 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the two models was 0.92 and 0.94, respectively. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed a good calibration only for PRISM III (PRISM III: χ (2) = 3.820, p = 0.282; PELOD-2: χ (2) = 9.576, p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Both scores had good discrimination. PELOD-2 needs recalibration to be a better reliable prediction tool. WHAT IS KNOWN: • PRISM III (Pediatric Risk of Mortality III) and PELOD (Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction) scores are frequently used to assess the performance of intensive care units and also for mortality prediction in the pediatric population. • Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction 2 is the newer version of PELOD and has recently been validated with good discrimination and calibration. What is New: • In our population, both scores had good discrimination. • PELOD-2 needs recalibration to be a better reliable prediction tool.
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: Erica C Kaye; Jonathan Jerkins; Courtney A Gushue; Samantha DeMarsh; April Sykes; Zhaohua Lu; Jennifer M Snaman; Lindsay Blazin; Liza-Marie Johnson; Deena R Levine; R Ray Morrison; Justin N Baker Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Ahmed S Said; Philip C Spinella; Mary E Hartman; Katherine M Steffen; Ronald Jackups; Richard Holubkov; Mike Wallendorf; Allan Doctor Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Erica C Kaye; Courtney A Gushue; Samantha DeMarsh; Jonathan Jerkins; April Sykes; Zhaohua Lu; Jennifer M Snaman; Lindsay Blazin; Liza-Marie Johnson; Deena R Levine; R Ray Morrison; Justin N Baker Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Erica C Kaye; Samantha DeMarsh; Courtney A Gushue; Jonathan Jerkins; April Sykes; Zhaohua Lu; Jennifer M Snaman; Lindsay J Blazin; Liza-Marie Johnson; Deena R Levine; R Ray Morrison; Justin N Baker Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-05-04
Authors: Eric S Rosenthal; Jordan J Elm; James Ingles; Alexander J Rogers; Thomas E Terndrup; Maija Holsti; Danny G Thomas; Lynn Babcock; Pamela J Okada; Robert H Lipsky; Joseph B Miller; Robert W Hickey; Megan E Barra; Thomas P Bleck; James C Cloyd; Robert Silbergleit; Daniel H Lowenstein; Lisa D Coles; Jaideep Kapur; Shlomo Shinnar; James M Chamberlain Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kevin Hummel; Angela P Presson; Morgan M Millar; Gitte Larsen; Howard Kadish; Lenora M Olson Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 3.971