Key result
PIM 3 demonstrated better prediction of mortality risk with an area under the ROC curve of 0.826 compared to 0.796 for PIM 2 (P < 0.001) in children admitted to the intensive care unit.
Why the study?
Does the PIM 3 scoring system improve mortality prediction compared to PIM 2 and PRISM III in children admitted to a pediatric ICU?
Population
503 children at least 1 month old but less than 18 years of age admitted to a single medical ICU between…
Comparison
Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 scoring system vs Pediatric Risk of Mortality III and PIM 2…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
May enhance pediatric ICU mortality prediction; leaves open generalizability and practice change pending prospective validation.
Observational (n=503)
No
Does the PIM 3 scoring system improve mortality prediction compared to PIM 2 and PRISM III in children admitted to a pediatric ICU?
Absolute Event Rate: 0.826% vs 0.796%
p-value: p=<0.001
The PIM 3 scoring system provides better mortality risk prediction than PIM 2 and PRISM III in Korean pediatric ICU patients.
Jung et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Pediatric intensive care unit admission (n=503). Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 (PIM 3) vs. Pediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM 2) was evaluated on Area under the ROC curve for mortality prediction (95% CI 0.790-0.858, p=<0.001). PIM 3 demonstrated better prediction of mortality risk with an area under the ROC curve of 0.826 compared to 0.796 for PIM 2 (P < 0.001) in children admitted to the intensive care unit.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: