• Jamileh Ramazani and Mohammad Hosseini.
• Department of Nursing & Midwifery, School of Nursing, Bojnourd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bojnourd, Iran. ramazani182@yahoo.com.
• Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2019 Nov 1; 114 (8): 717-723.

IntroductionThe SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment), GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), and FOUR (Full Outline of UnResponsiveness) scores are the most commonly used scoring systems to predict the risk of mortality and morbidity in intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of the current study was to compare the predictive ability of these three models for predicting medical/surgical ICU mortality in critically ill children.MethodsIn the current observational and prospective study, a total of 90 consecutive patients, age ≤18 years, admitted to medical and surgical ICUs, were enrolled. The SOFA, GCS, FOUR score and demographic characteristics of all children were recorded on the first day of admission. For statistical analyses, a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test, and logistic regression were used (95% confidence interval).ResultsThe SOFA, GCS, and FOUR scores between survivors and nonsurvivors were statistically different (p = 0.002, p < 0.001, p = 0.004, respectively). The discrimination power for SOFA, GCS, and FOUR score was moderate (area under ROC [AUC] curve: 75.1%; standard error [SE]: 6.0%, 72.9% [SE: 7.2%], 78.7% [SE: 6.6%], respectively). The only well-calibrated model was GCS (x2 = 2.76, p = 0.59).ConclusionsThe performance of the three predictive models SOFA, GCS, and FOUR score for predicting outcomes in children admitted to medical and surgical ICUs was good. The discrimination was moderate for all three models, and calibration was good just for GCS. GCS was superior in predicting outcome in critically ill children; however, further studies are needed to validate these scores in the pediatric population.

23 keywords...

hide…