Among the participants, the shock was diagnosed by the standard protocol as given. [1– 3].

A single test for the diagnosis of the shock does not yet exist. Hence a combination of Doctors and healthcare professionals use tests to piece together a complete picture of the infection. They will likely order blood and urine tests, as well as tests for specific bacterial infections or inflammation. A spinal fluid test, X-ray, or ultrasound may also be needed. Presence of fever for patients three months of age and older, hypothermia, tachycardia, tachypnea, abnormal pulse, hypotensive. Decreased peripheral pulses, cool extremities, prolonged capillary refill time (>2 sec), tachycardia and Oliguria. The recorded blood pressure was <2 standard deviations (SD) below the mean for age and a state in which at least any three of the criteria such as decreased peripheral pulses, mottled or cool extremities, prolonged capillary refill time was >2 sec, tachycardia and Oliguria. Mean heart rate was >2 SD above normal for age in the absence of external stimuli, chronic drugs or painful stimuli was considered as tachycardia and a urine output of <0.5 mL/kg/hr was categorised to be Oliguria.

Ethical consideration and permission: The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee. This study is on the paediatric age group. Hence an informed consent was taken from the parents of the participants.

Statistical analysis: SPSS 21.0 was used for the analysis of the data. Microsoft Word and Excel were used to generate tables. A Chi-square test was used to find the association between categorical variables, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

the PICU. In a study done by Ravikanth et al. [8] at Indira Gandhi Institute of Child Health (IGICH) Bangalore, Shock accounted for 12.7% of total PICU admissions; the investigators enrolled 784 subjects and shock was diagnosed in 100 (12.7%). In another Indian study, the shock was detected in 4.3%; this study was reported by Daljit Singh et al. [9].

In the present study, the most common age group affected was between 1 month to 1 year (38.6%), followed by 1 – 5 years (34.6%) and 5 – 12 years (26.6%). In a study done by El-Nawawy A et al. [10], less than one year is the most commonly affected age group (39%) followed by 1 – 5 years (38%). Similar results were reported by Derek S et al. [11]. These authors also noted that children < 1 year are more prone to shock and the reported incidence was 39.8% in this age group.

In the research, out of 75 cases, survivors were 56 (74.66%), and non-survivors were 19 (25.33%), which was in concordance with the literature. [26]. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the survivors and non-survivors in this study (Table 2). Kana ram Jat et al. [12] also reported that statistically, there was no significant difference among the survivors and non-survivors with shock.

De Freitas and Aragao et al. [13] found that in children admitted to PICU, mortality was higher in children less than two years of age and in another study done by Chang P et al. [14]. In non-traumatic shock cases, age less than two years tend to have a poor outcome in a study done by Kumar et al. [15]. The mortality was reported to be increased with decreasing age. Mortality was 26.4% by Hochman Hi et al. [16] and 29% by Butt W et al. [17]. The reasons for the decreased mortality was not given. But the lower death rate in this report could be better patient care due to the availability of sufficient human resources.   

Out of 75 diagnosed shock patients in this research, 54.66% were male members, and 45.33% were female participants in a study done by Praveen Khilani et al. [18]. Males constitute 60% of cases, in another study done by Ravikanth et al. [8]. Male patients included about 61% of cases and female patients 39% of cases, in another study done by Daljit Singh et al. [9]. The male to female ratio was 1.6:1. In a report by Watson