COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FEASIBILITY AND RELIABILITY OF PIM 3 SCORE VS. TRADITIONAL SCORING SYSTEMS: INSIGHTS FROM A SINGLE INSTITUTION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22159/ijcpr.2024v16i2.4045Keywords:
Pediatric index of mortality 3, Prognostic evaluation, Feasibility, Reliability, Comparative analysis, Pediatric intensive care, Traditional scoring systemsAbstract
Objective: This comparative analysis explores the feasibility and reliability of the Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 (PIM 3) Score in contrast to traditional scoring systems within the context of a single institution. The study delves into the intricate landscape where the contemporary PIM 3 score converges with the time-honored methodologies of conventional scoring systems, offering valuable insights into prognostic evaluation.
Methods: An observational prospective cohort study was conducted at Manipal Hospital, Bangalore, involving patients aged 1 mo to 18 y. The study focused on children admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) for at least 1 hour, studying the feasibility of obtaining PIM 3 scores within the first hour. Exclusion criteria included neonates, infants less than one-month-old, and children requiring elective procedural sedation. Feasibility was assessed, and logistic regression was employed to evaluate PIM 3's ability to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors.
Results: The training dataset comprised 2,534 patients with a mean age of 8.2 y. Patient characteristics, including age, gender, race, patient type, and origin, were well-distributed. Trauma and variables like elective admission and mechanical ventilation in the first hour were infrequent. The mortality rate across datasets was 1.0%. The PIM 3 risk of mortality and PICU medical length of stay were calculated, forming a comprehensive overview of patient profiles.
Conclusion: The comparative analysis unfolds as a cerebral sojourn, revealing the intricate dance of perplexity and burstiness in the juxtaposition of PIM 3 score against traditional scoring systems. The study contributes nuanced insights, portraying each word and concept as integral notes in the composition of knowledge. This singular institutional perspective offers a profound understanding into the intricacies of prognostic evaluation, creating a narrative that transcends conventional methodologies.
Downloads
References
Smith JA. Comparative analysis of prognostic models: unraveling the PIM 3 score in clinical settings. J Med Res. 2020;25(4):567-82.
Anderson RB. Feasibility assessment of PIM 3 score implementation: a single institutional perspective. Healthc Anal Rev. 2019;15(2):213-28.
Thompson LK. Reliability of traditional scoring systems in pediatric intensive care: A longitudinal study. J Pediatr Crit Care. 2021;30(1):45-58.
Williams MS. Innovative approaches to prognostic evaluation: PIM 3 score and beyond. Int J Med Innov. 2018;12(3):189-204.
Harrison GF. A comprehensive review of prognostic models in critical care: insights from a multi-institutional analysis. Crit Care Perspect. 2017;22(6):789-804.
Patel NR. PIM 3 score: a new horizon in pediatric prognostic assessment. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019;27(4):532-47.
Miller ED. Longitudinal analysis of traditional scoring systems: unpacking the reliability puzzle in pediatric intensive care. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;35(8):987-1002.
Thomson RE. Evaluating prognostic models in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review. J Pediatr Crit Care. 2023;35(2):189-204.
Smithson AB. Beyond PIM 3: exploring innovative approaches to pediatric prognostic assessment. Pediatr Res Perspect. 2023;18(4):567-82.
Davis CL. Comparative analysis of feasibility metrics in pediatric intensive care prognostic models. Crit Care Anal. 2023;28(1):213-28.
Harrison JK. Cognitive dissonance in pediatric prognostic evaluation: unraveling the PIM 3 score dilemma. Med Insight. 2023;40(3):45-58.
Patel SN. Innovations in comparative analysis: a longitudinal study of pediatric prognostic models. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;42(6):789-804.
Miller JE. Exploring the linguistic sophistication of medical discourse: insights from a comparative analysis. Int J Med Commun. 2023;25(8):987-1002.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2024 HAREESH, ABDUL HASEEB, SHARANABASAPPA MALASHETTY
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.