No abstract

Both PRISM and PIM scores have a good discriminatory performance. The calibration with PRISM score is good but the PIM score displays poor calibration.

No abstract

No abstract

This article deals with formulating a suitable title and an appropriate abstract for an original research paper. The “title” and the “abstract” are the “initial impressions” of a research article, and hence they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, and meticulously. Often both of these are drafted after the full manuscript is ready. Most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper. The title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper and should be pleasant to read. The “title” should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and should not be misleading. The “abstract” needs to be simple, specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, scholarly, (preferably) structured, and should not be misrepresentative. The abstract should be consistent with the main text of the paper, especially after a revision is made to the paper and should include the key message prominently. It is very important to include the most important words and terms (the “keywords”) in the title and the abstract for appropriate indexing purpose and for retrieval from the search engines and scientific databases. Such keywords should be listed after the abstract. One must adhere to the instructions laid down by the target journal with regard to the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.

Frequency of VAP was 6.03 % with neuromuscular disease, histamine-2 receptor blockers, tracheostomy and positive blood culture being risk factors for VAP.

Early atresia of the common pulmonary vein, an extremely rare abnormality, manifests in early infancy/neonatal period and needs urgent corrective surgery. It is associated with other congenital heart disorders and extracardiac manifestations as well.

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 > 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.