Observational studyBMC gastroenterology2018
Comparison of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring approaches in predicting the risk of in-hospital death among emergency hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective observational study in Nanjing, China.
Observational study in BMC gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in standardized diagnosis and management of pediatric gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2025Pooled it
- Characteristics, Risk Stratification, and Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Comparison of the new risk score (ABL) with the Glasgow Blatchford Score, AIMS65, and pre-endoscopic Rockall Score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding admitted to the emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Comparison of Canada-United Kingdom-Australia (CANUKA) scores of patients with gastrointestinal bleeding presenting to the emergency department with other gastrointestinal bleeding scores.Turkish journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Age, blood tests and comorbidities and AIMS65 risk scores outperform Glasgow-Blatchford and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Article
- A comparative study of scoring systems that accurately predict the prognosis of lower gastrointestinal bleeding.International journal of colorectal disease · 2023Article
- An update on the management of non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
- Predicting mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding using machine-learning.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Child-Pugh Score, MELD Score and Glasgow Blatchford Score to Predict the In-Hospital Outcome of Portal Hypertensive Patients Presenting with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Experience from Tertiary Healthcare System.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A Comparative Analysis of Risk Scoring Systems in Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed.Cureus · 2022Article
- 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
- A Nomogram Model for Predicting Type-2 Myocardial Infarction Induced by Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Current medical science · 2022Article
- Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Prediction of adverse outcomes using non-endoscopic scoring systems in patients over 80 years of age who present with the upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022Article
- Novel and Simple Criteria for Predicting Mortality of Peptic Ulcer Disease.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2021Article
- Comparing the Performance of the ABC, AIMS65, GBS, and pRS Scores in Predicting 90-day Mortality Or Rebleeding Among Emergency Department Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Prospective Multicenter Study.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2021Article
- Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Risk Factors for Acute Coronary Syndrome in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2021Article
- Predictors of rebleeding and in-hospital mortality in patients with nonvariceal upper digestive bleeding.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the performance of AIMS65, Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) in predicting the death risk among emergency-hospitalized patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in regional China.
methodsA retrospective study was implemented between January 2014 and December 2015. Eligible participants were those who were hospitalized with UGIB. The outcome variable was in-hospital death, while explanatory variables were AIMS65, GBS and RS scores. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated to assess the association of AIMS65, GBS and RS with death risk using multivariate logistic regression models. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of three scoring systems were computed to compare their predictive power.
resultsAmong 799 UGIB participants, 674 were non-variceal bleeding (NVUGIB) and 125 variceal bleeding (VUGIB) patients. AIMS65 (OR = 14.72, 95% CI = 6.48, 33.43) and RS (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.20, 2.13) were positively associated with the risk of in-hospital death. Moreover, AIMS65 (AUC = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.84, 0.98) performed the best in predicting in-hospital death, followed by RS (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.86) and GBS (AUC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.59, 0.83) among overall UGIB participants. AIMS65 was also the best indicator to predict in-hospital death among either NVUGIB participants (AUC = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.98) or VUGIB participants (AUC = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.89, 1.00).
conclusionsAIMS65, GBS and RS scoring approaches were all acceptable for predicting in-hospital death among UGIB patients irrespective of the subtype of UGIB in China. The AIMS65 might be the most powerful predictor.
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.