Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926146›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2015

Costs and quality of life associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the UK: cohort analysis of patients in a cluster randomised trial.

H E Campbell, E A Stokes, D Bargo, R F Logan, A Mora, R Hodge, A Gray, M W James, A J Stanley, S M Everett and 10 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02105532 (A Multi-centre, Feasibility, Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Restrictive Versus Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategies in Adult Patients Admitted With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding), which is not on this map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02105532 phase2 / phase3completednot on this map

A Multi-centre, Feasibility, Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Restrictive Versus Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategies in Adult Patients Admitted With Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr Vipul JairathRan2012 to 2013Enrolled936ConditionsGastrointestinal HemorrhageArmsRestrictive transfusion policy, Liberal Transfusion Policy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Eradication ofHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bleeding related hospitalizations and mortality in England 2014-2019.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

H E CampbellNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
E A StokesNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
D BargoNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
R F LoganNottingham Digestive Diseases NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
A MoraClinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK.
R HodgeClinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK.
A GrayDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
M W JamesNottingham Digestive Diseases NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
A J StanleyGastrointestinal Unit, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
S M EverettDepartment of Gastroenterology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
A A BaileyTranslational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
H DallalDepartment of Gastroenterology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
J GreenawayDepartment of Gastroenterology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
C DyerClinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.
C LlewelynClinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Cambridge, UK.
T S WalshCentre for Inflammation Research, Queen's Medical Research Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
S P L TravisTranslational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
M F MurphyClinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford University Hospitals and University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
V JairathTranslational Gastroenterology Unit, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Clinical Trials Unit, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.
TRIGGER investigators
University of Oxford · GBNHS Blood and Transplant · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBGlasgow Royal Infirmary · GBQueen's Medical Centre · GBSt James's University Hospital · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U122870183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesData on costs associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) are scarce. We provide estimates of UK healthcare costs, indirect costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients presenting to hospital with AUGIB.

settingSix UK university hospitals with >20 AUGIB admissions per month, >400 adult beds, 24 h endoscopy, and on-site access to intensive care and surgery.

participants936 patients aged ≥18 years, admitted with AUGIB, and enrolled between August 2012 and March 2013 in the TRIGGER trial of AUGIB comparing restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Healthcare resource use during hospitalisation and postdischarge up to 28  days, unpaid informal care, time away from paid employment and HRQoL using the EuroQol EQ-5D at 28  days were measured prospectively. National unit costs were used to value resource use. Initial in-hospital treatment costs were upscaled to a UK level.

resultsMean initial in-hospital costs were £2458 (SE=£216) per patient. Inpatient bed days, endoscopy and RBC transfusions were key cost drivers. Postdischarge healthcare costs were £391 (£44) per patient. One-third of patients received unpaid informal care and the quarter in paid employment required time away from work. Mean HRQoL for survivors was 0.74. Annual initial inhospital treatment cost for all AUGIB cases in the UK was estimated to be £155.5 million, with exploratory analyses of the incremental costs of treating hospitalised patients developing AUGIB generating figures of between £143 million and £168 million.

conclusionsAUGIB is a large burden for UK hospitals with inpatient stay, endoscopy and RBC transfusions as the main cost drivers. It is anticipated that this work will enable quantification of the impact of cost reduction strategies in AUGIB and will inform economic analyses of novel or existing interventions for AUGIB. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsQuality of LifeAcute DiseaseCost-Benefit AnalysisEndoscopyErythrocyte TransfusionGastrointestinal HemorrhageHospitalizationHumansLength of StayProspective StudiesUnited KingdomHEALTH ECONOMICS

Identifiers

PMID25926146
PMCPMC4420945
OpenAlexW1989367456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.