comparação entre dois escores de prognóstico (prism e pim) em unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica comparison of two prognostic scores (prism and pim) at a pediatric intensive care unit
Clicks: 250
ID: 239489
2005
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
30.0
/100
250 views
41 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #56 of 117 articles by views in sports (basel, switzerland)
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
OBJETIVO: Comparar o desempenho do PRISM (Pediatric Risk of Mortality) e o PIM (Pediatric Index of Mortality) em uma unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica geral investigando a relação existente entre a mortalidade e a sobrevivência observadas com a mortalidade e sobrevivência estimadas pelos dois escores. MÉTODOS: Estudo de coorte contemporâneo realizado entre 1° de junho de 1999 a 31 de maio de 2000 na unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica do Hospital São Lucas da Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul. Os critérios de inclusão no estudo e o cálculo do PRISM e do PIM foram feitos conforme preconizado e utilizando as fórmulas de seus artigos originais. Para estatística, utilizou-se o teste z de Flora, teste de ajuste de Hosmer-Lemeshow, área sob a curva típica de um recebedor operador de características (curva ROC) e teste de correlação de Spearman. O estudo foi aprovado pelo Comitê da instituição. RESULTADOS: Internaram na unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica 498 pacientes, sendo 77 excluídos. Dos 421 pacientes estudados, 33 (7,83%) foram a óbito. A mortalidade estimada pelo PRISM foi de 30,84 (7,22%), com standardized mortality rate 1,07 (0,74-1,50), z = -0,45. Pelo PIM, foi de 26,13 (6,21%), com standardized mortality rate 1,26 (0,87-1,77), z = -1,14. O teste de ajuste de Hosmer-Lemeshow obteve um qui-quadrado 9,23 (p = 0,100) para o PRISM e 27,986 (p < 0,001) para o PIM. A área abaixo da curva ROC foi 0,870 (0,810-0,930) para o PRISM e 0,845 (0,769-0,920) para o PIM. Teste de Spearman r = 0,65 (p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Na análise dos testes podemos constatar que, embora o PIM apresente uma pior calibração no conjunto dos resultados, tanto o PRISM como o PIM apresentaram boa capacidade de discriminar entre sobreviventes e não sobreviventes, constituindo-se em ferramentas de desempenho comparáveis na avaliação prognóstica de pacientes pediátricos admitidos em nossa unidade.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the PRISM (Pediatric Risk of Mortality) and the PIM (Pediatric Index of Mortality) scores at a general pediatric intensive care unit, investigating the relation between observed mortality and survival and predicted mortality and survival. METHODS: A contemporary cohort study undertaken between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000 at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Hospital São Lucas pediatric intensive care unit. The inclusion criteria and the PRISM and PIM calculations were performed as set out in the original articles and using the formulae as published. Statistical analysis for model evaluation employed the Flora z test, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, ROC curve (receiver operating characteristic) and Spearman's correlation tests. The study was approved by the institution's Ethics Committee RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-eight patients were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, 77 of whom presented exclusion criteria. Thirty-three (7.83%) of the 421 patients studied died and 388 patients were discharged. Estimated mortality by PRISM was 30.84 (7.22%) with a standardized mortality rate of 1.07 (0.74-1.50), z = -0.45 and by PIM this was 26.13 (6.21%) with a standardized mortality rate of 1.26 (0.87-1.77), z = -1.14. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test gave a chi-square of 9.23 (p = 0.100) for PRISM and 27.986 (p < 0.001) for PIM. The area under the ROC curve was 0.870 (0.810-0.930) for PRISM and 0.845 (0.769-0.920) for PIM. The Spearman test returned r = 0.65 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Analyzing the tests we can observe that, although the PIM test was less well calibrated overall, both PRISM and PIM offer a good capacity for discriminating between survivors and moribund patients. They are tools with comparable performance at the prognostic evaluation of the pediatric patients admitted to our unit.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of the PRISM (Pediatric Risk of Mortality) and the PIM (Pediatric Index of Mortality) scores at a general pediatric intensive care unit, investigating the relation between observed mortality and survival and predicted mortality and survival. METHODS: A contemporary cohort study undertaken between 1 June 1999 and 31 May 2000 at the Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Hospital São Lucas pediatric intensive care unit. The inclusion criteria and the PRISM and PIM calculations were performed as set out in the original articles and using the formulae as published. Statistical analysis for model evaluation employed the Flora z test, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, ROC curve (receiver operating characteristic) and Spearman's correlation tests. The study was approved by the institution's Ethics Committee RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-eight patients were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit, 77 of whom presented exclusion criteria. Thirty-three (7.83%) of the 421 patients studied died and 388 patients were discharged. Estimated mortality by PRISM was 30.84 (7.22%) with a standardized mortality rate of 1.07 (0.74-1.50), z = -0.45 and by PIM this was 26.13 (6.21%) with a standardized mortality rate of 1.26 (0.87-1.77), z = -1.14. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test gave a chi-square of 9.23 (p = 0.100) for PRISM and 27.986 (p < 0.001) for PIM. The area under the ROC curve was 0.870 (0.810-0.930) for PRISM and 0.845 (0.769-0.920) for PIM. The Spearman test returned r = 0.65 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Analyzing the tests we can observe that, although the PIM test was less well calibrated overall, both PRISM and PIM offer a good capacity for discriminating between survivors and moribund patients. They are tools with comparable performance at the prognostic evaluation of the pediatric patients admitted to our unit.
| Reference Key |
martha2005jornalcomparao
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Vanessa Feller Martha;Pedro Celiny Ramos Garcia;Jefferson Pedro Piva;Paulo Roberto Einloft;Francisco Bruno;Viviane Rampon |
| Journal | sports (basel, switzerland) |
| Year | 2005 |
| DOI |
10.1590/S0021-75572005000400014
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
ZincirX productsfrom the team behind Journament
-
PatentYazar
Patent drafts for the EPO, USPTO and TürkPatent
From inventor notes to a DOCX draft: description, claims, abstract. The machine drafts, the attorney signs.
See how it works (opens in a new tab) -
Projenator
Have a project idea? Score and plan it with AI
AI scores your idea in five dimensions and builds a phased plan. Your first project is free, no card needed.
Start your first project (opens in a new tab)
Cookies
We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site and keep you signed in. With your permission we would also use Google Analytics to see how the site is used, and Google AdSense to show ads on journal and article pages. Both stay off unless you accept, and you can change your mind at any time. How we use cookies · KVKK notice (Türkiye)
Cookie settings
Your session, form security (XSRF) and this choice; if you came through a member's referral link, its code for 30 days (referral_token). Journament's own cookies only.
Google Analytics 4 (Google LLC, USA): measures which pages are visited; the _ga and _ga_* cookies are kept for up to 2 years.
Google AdSense (Google LLC, USA): shows, measures and may personalise ads on journal, article and home pages; the __gads, __gpi and __eoi cookies are kept for up to 13 months.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.