English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Aims  To compare and validate the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) III, Pediatric Index of Mortality (PIM) 2, and PIM 3 scores in a tertiary care pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (Indian setting). Materials and Methods  All consecutively admitted patients in the PICU of a public hospital (excluding those with unstable vital signs or cardiopulmonary resuscitation within 2 hours of admission, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before admission, and discharge or death in less than 24 hours after admission) were included. PRISM III, PIM 2, and PIM 3 scores were calculated. Mortality discrimination for the three scores was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and calibration was performed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Results  A total of 350 patients were included (male:female = 1.3:1) over the study duration of 18 months (median age: 12 months [interquartile range: 4-60 months]). Nearly half were infants (47.4%). Patients with central nervous system disease were the highest (22.8%) followed by cardiovascular system (20.6%). Mortality rate was 39.4% (138 deaths). The area under the ROC curve for the PRISM III score was 0.667, and goodness-of-fit test showed no significant difference between the observed and expected mortalities in any of these categories ( p  &gt; 0.5), showing good calibration. Areas under the ROC curve for the PIM 2 and PIM 3 scores were 0.728 and 0.726, respectively. For both the scores, the goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration. Conclusions  Although all the three scores demonstrate good calibration, the PIM 2 and PIM 3 scores have an advantage regarding the better discrimination ability, ease of data collection, simplicity of computation, and inherent capacity of not being affected by treatment in PICU.

journal of pediatric intensive care

Comparison of Pediatric Risk of Mortality III, Pediatric Index of Mortality 2, and Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 in Predicting Mortality in a Pediatric Intensive Care Unit