Trial reportWorld journal of gastroenterology2008
Endoscopic findings in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding clinically classified into three risk groups prior to endoscopy.
Trial report in World journal of gastroenterology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative performance of pre-interventional prognostic scores in predicting 30-day mortality and ICU admission in gastrointestinal bleeding.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of pre-endoscopy risk scores and base deficit for prediction adverse clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Limits of pre-endoscopic scoring systems in geriatric patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Six Preendoscopy Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes for Older Adults with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Article
- Clinical Performance of Prediction Rules and Nasogastric Lavage for the Evaluation of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Observational Study.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2017Article
- Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcome of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding; a Narrative Review.Emergency (Tehran, Iran) · 2017Review
- Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?World journal of gastrointestinal pathophysiology · 2016Review
- Acute upper gastro-intestinal bleeding in morocco: what have changed?ISRN gastroenterology · 2011Article
- Endoscopy for upper gastrointestinal bleeding: how urgent is it?Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate in a prospective study whether a simplified clinical score prior to endoscopy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) patients was able to predict endoscopic findings at urgent endoscopy.
methodsAll consecutive UGIB patients referred to a single endoscopic center during a 16 mo period were enrolled. Before endoscopy patients were stratified according to a simple clinical score (T-score), including T1 (high-risk), T2 (intermediate-risk) and T3 (low-risk). Endoscopy was performed in all cases within 2 h, and high-risk stigmata were considered for further analysis.
resultsOut of the 436 patients included into the study, 126 (29%) resulted to be T1, 135 (31%) T2, and 175 (40%) T3. Overall, stigmata of recent haemorrhage (SRH) were detected in 118 cases (27%). SRH occurred more frequently in T1 patients than in T2/T3 cases (85% vs 3.2%; c2 = 304.5309, P < 0.001). Older age (t = 3.311; P < 0.01) and presence of comorbidities (c2 = 14.7458; P < 0.01) were more frequently detected in T1 than in T2/T3 patients.
conclusionOur simplified clinical score appeared to be associated with the detection of endoscopic findings which may deserve urgent endoscopy. A further, randomised study is needed to assess its accuracy in safely scheduling endoscopy in UGIB patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.