Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Journal of Pediatrics 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Original Article

Performance of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) and (PELOD-2) scores in a pediatric intensive care unit of a developing country

Authors: Ahmed El-Nawawy, Aly Abdel Mohsen, Manal Abdel-Malik, Sarah Omar Taman

Published in: European Journal of Pediatrics | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

The study aimed to compare two scores: the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) with its updated version (PELOD-2) in describing the severity of organ dysfunction in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and assess the performance of PELOD-2 in the Egyptian population. A prospective cohort study of 200 patients consecutively admitted to PICU between July 2015 and A 2016 was included. The median age was 6 months, and the male to female ratio was 1.04. The median length of PICU stay was 4 days. The overall predicted number of deaths using PELOD was 76 patients whereas, by PELOD-2, it was 50 patients. The observed mortality was 50 patients. The area under the receiving operating characteristic curve was excellent for both PELOD and PELOD-2 (0.93 and 0.91, respectively). The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration of PELOD-2 (χ 2 = 9.9, p = 0.27), while PELOD showed poor calibration (χ 2 = 42, p = 0.000) in the same studied group.
Conclusion: Both scores had excellent discrimination. PELOD-2 is reproducible and easier to perform and had better calibration compared to PELOD score.
What is Known:
Pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score was developed 1999 and validated in 2003 to describe the organ dysfunction severity in pediatric intensive care units.
A new and easier version of (PELOD-2) was developed 2013 in France and Belgium to replace the old score. It is important to assess the performance of the new score in other population else than the original.
What is New:
In an Egyptian pediatric intensive care, the performance of the score revealed:
PELOD-2 was an excellent discriminatory score comparable to the original score.
PELOD-2 calibrated well in the Egyptian population while the old score had poor calibration.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Altman DG, Royston P (2000) What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 19(4):453–473CrossRefPubMed Altman DG, Royston P (2000) What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 19(4):453–473CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Brady AR, Harrisson D, Black S (2006) Assessment and optimization of mortality prediction tools for admissions to pediatric intensive care in the United Kingdom. Pediatrics 117(4):733–742CrossRef Brady AR, Harrisson D, Black S (2006) Assessment and optimization of mortality prediction tools for admissions to pediatric intensive care in the United Kingdom. Pediatrics 117(4):733–742CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Buttram SDW, Bakerman PR, Pollack MM (2014). Scoring systems in critical care. Ped Crit Care Med: 47–54. Buttram SDW, Bakerman PR, Pollack MM (2014). Scoring systems in critical care. Ped Crit Care Med: 47–54.
4.
go back to reference Garcia PCR, Eulmesekian P, Branco RG (2010) External validation of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Intensive Care Med 36:116–122CrossRefPubMed Garcia PCR, Eulmesekian P, Branco RG (2010) External validation of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Intensive Care Med 36:116–122CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Gonḉalves JP, Severo M, Rocha C (2015) Performance of PRISM III and PELOD-2 scores in a pediatric intensive care unit. Eur J Pediatr 10:2533–2535 Gonḉalves JP, Severo M, Rocha C (2015) Performance of PRISM III and PELOD-2 scores in a pediatric intensive care unit. Eur J Pediatr 10:2533–2535
6.
7.
go back to reference Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143(1):29–36CrossRefPubMed Hanley JA, Mcneil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143(1):29–36CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S (1997) A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 16:965–980CrossRefPubMed Hosmer DW, Hosmer T, Le Cessie S, Lemeshow S (1997) A comparison of goodness-of-fit tests for the logistic regression model. Stat Med 16:965–980CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Lacroix J, Cotting J (2005) Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scoring in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 6:126–134CrossRef Lacroix J, Cotting J (2005) Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scoring in children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 6:126–134CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Leteurtre S, Duhamel A, Grandbastien B (2010) Daily estimation of the severity of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critically ill children. Canad Med Assoc J 182(11):1181–1187CrossRef Leteurtre S, Duhamel A, Grandbastien B (2010) Daily estimation of the severity of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome in critically ill children. Canad Med Assoc J 182(11):1181–1187CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Leteurtre S, Duhamel A, Salleron J (2013) PELOD-2: an update of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Crit Care Med 41:1761–1773CrossRefPubMed Leteurtre S, Duhamel A, Salleron J (2013) PELOD-2: an update of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction score. Crit Care Med 41:1761–1773CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A (1999) Development of a pediatric multiple organ dysfunction score: use of two strategies. Med Decis Making 19:399–410CrossRefPubMed Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A (1999) Development of a pediatric multiple organ dysfunction score: use of two strategies. Med Decis Making 19:399–410CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A (2003) Validation of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score: prospective, observational, multicentre study. Lancet 362:192–197CrossRefPubMed Leteurtre S, Martinot A, Duhamel A (2003) Validation of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) score: prospective, observational, multicentre study. Lancet 362:192–197CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Schoonjans F, Zalta A, Depuydt CE (1995) MedCalc: a new computer program for medical statistics. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 48:257–262CrossRef Schoonjans F, Zalta A, Depuydt CE (1995) MedCalc: a new computer program for medical statistics. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 48:257–262CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Thukral A, Khohli U, Lodha R, Kabra SK, Kabra NK (2007) Validation of the PELOD score for multiple organ dysfunction in children. Indian Pediatr 44:683–686PubMed Thukral A, Khohli U, Lodha R, Kabra SK, Kabra NK (2007) Validation of the PELOD score for multiple organ dysfunction in children. Indian Pediatr 44:683–686PubMed
18.
go back to reference Tibby SM (2010) Does PELOD measure organ dysfunction and is organ dysfunction a valid surrogate for death? Intensive Care Med 36:4–7CrossRefPubMed Tibby SM (2010) Does PELOD measure organ dysfunction and is organ dysfunction a valid surrogate for death? Intensive Care Med 36:4–7CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Zimmerman JK, Kramer AA, McNair DS (2006) Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 34:1297–1310CrossRefPubMed Zimmerman JK, Kramer AA, McNair DS (2006) Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) IV: hospital mortality assessment for today’s critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 34:1297–1310CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Performance of the pediatric logistic organ dysfunction (PELOD) and (PELOD-2) scores in a pediatric intensive care unit of a developing country
Authors
Ahmed El-Nawawy
Aly Abdel Mohsen
Manal Abdel-Malik
Sarah Omar Taman
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-6199
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1076
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-017-2916-x

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

European Journal of Pediatrics 7/2017 Go to the issue