Pediatric risk of mortality (PRISM) score

Pollack, Murray M.; Ruttimann, Urs E.; Getson, Pamela R.

doi:10.1097/00003246-198811000-00006

Cited by 1,371 publications

(885 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

793

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These include mortality risk prediction scores, such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) for adults and the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) score for children [1,2]. Both scores are complicated and consist of an extensive list of vital signs and laboratory tests and do not allow for immediate scoring.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meningococcal disease: A comparison of eight severity scores in 125 children

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Download date: 12 May 2018Intensive Care Med (1996)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meningococcal disease: A comparison of eight severity scores in 125 children

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data for calculating scores and predictions was collected prospectively over the period and with the techniques set out for each score (PRISMfirst 24 hours after admission, PIM up to one hour after admission). 5,6 Patients were excluded from the study if they died within the first 8 hours or were discharged within the first 24 hours after admission.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,6 No tests were performed to meet the needs of this research since it considered non-collection as normal. Demographic data was collected in order to characterize the sample, including age a admission, sex, origin.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since they compare mortality adjusted by disease severity, these scores can also be used for comparisons between clinical trials and for planning technological resources in this area. 4 The principal scores that have been developed for the pediatric population are the PRISM (Pediatric Risk of Mortality) 5 and PIM (Paediatric Index of Mortality), 6 with their most recent versions being PRISM III 7 and PIM-2. 8 These scores were developed by identifying variables relevant to mortality risk and scoring them after a multivariate statistical analysis by logistic regression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 The PRISM score was published in 1988 by Pollack et al and exhibited an excellent discriminatory and predictive performance. 5 It is still the most widely known and used at PICU and is used in clinical trials as a standard prognostic score for evaluation of disease severity in pediatric patients. A revised version of the PRISM score, PRISM III, has been available since 1996, 6 which, according to its authors, offers better predictive capability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparação entre dois escores de prognóstico (PRISM e PIM) em unidade de terapia intensiva pediátrica

Martha¹,

García²,

Piva³

et al. 2005

J. Pediatr. (Rio J.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 CommitteeResults: 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. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2005;81(3):259-64: Prognostic scores, PRISM, PIM, mortality.

show abstract