ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality IV in Brazilian PICUs: A Multicenter Prospective Study.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceThis is the first Brazilian study evaluating the performance of Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) IV and the first to use the calibration belt technique.
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of PRISM IV in a large cohort of patients admitted to Brazilian PICUs. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis is a longitudinal, prospective, multicenter study conducted in 36 Brazilian PICUs with children between 29 days and 18 years old admitted from March 2020 to March 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: PRISM IV's performance was assessed using the standardized mortality ratio (SMR), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) with 95% CI, and the calibration belt with 80% and 95% CI.
resultsA total of 12,046 patients from 36 PICUs were included. Observed overall in-hospital mortality was higher than predicted: observed = 249 (2.1%) × predicted = 188.1 (1.56%) (SMR = 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.50]); discrimination was good (AUROC = 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.89]), and calibration was poor, underestimating mortality over a wide range of predicted mortality (2-61%). To explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PRISM IV's performance, we divided the study period into prevaccine and postvaccine. In the prevaccine period, the SMR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.17-1.62), the AUROC was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.80-0.88), and the range of miscalibration was broader than in the total cohort (underestimation in the 2-98% range). In the postvaccine period, the SMR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.03-1.51), the AUROC was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.86-0.94), and the calibration belt underestimated mortality in a narrower range of 3-46% of predicted mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: PRISM IV showed good discrimination but miscalibration across a wide range of predicted mortality and different COVID-19 pandemic periods in a large cohort. Further research with subgroup analyses are needed to develop strategies to improve the performance of PRISM IV in different and heterogeneous Brazilian healthcare contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.