| Title |
Performance of the PEdiatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score in critically ill children requiring plasma transfusions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0197-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oliver Karam, Pierre Demaret, Alain Duhamel, Alison Shefler, Philip C. Spinella, Simon J. Stanworth, Marisa Tucci, Stéphane Leteurtre, for the PlasmaTV investigators |
| Abstract |
Organ dysfunction scores, based on physiological parameters, have been created to describe organ failure. In a general pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) population, the PEdiatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction-2 score (PELOD-2) score had both a good discrimination and calibration, allowing to describe the clinical outcome of critically ill children throughout their stay. This score is increasingly used in clinical trials in specific subpopulation. Our objective was to assess the performance of the PELOD-2 score in a subpopulation of critically ill children requiring plasma transfusions. This was an ancillary study of a prospective observational study on plasma transfusions over a 6-week period, in 101 PICUs in 21 countries. All critically ill children who received at least one plasma transfusion during the observation period were included. PELOD-2 scores were measured on days 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12 after plasma transfusion. Performance of the score was assessed by the determination of the discrimination (area under the ROC curve: AUC) and the calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test). Four hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled in the study (median age and weight: 1 year and 9.1 kg, respectively). Observed mortality rate was 26.9 % (119/443). For PELOD-2 on day 1, the AUC was 0.76 (95 % CI 0.71-0.81) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was p = 0.76. The serial evaluation of the changes in the daily PELOD-2 scores from day 1 demonstrated a significant association with death, adjusted for the PELOD-2 score on day 1. In a subpopulation of critically ill children requiring plasma transfusion, the PELOD-2 score has a lower but acceptable discrimination than in an entire population. This score should therefore be used cautiously in this specific subpopulation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 52 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 29% |
| Unknown | 5 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 October 2016.
All research outputs
#15,385,802
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#829
of 1,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#201,635
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.