Observational studyYonsei medical journal2019
Performance of Three Scoring Systems in Predicting Massive Transfusion in Patients with Unstable Upper Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.
Observational study in Yonsei medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Predictive value of modified early warning score for massive transfusion in patients with traumatic brain injury.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2022Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAfter trauma and surgery, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is the most common condition that can require massive transfusion (MT). The present study aimed to analyze and compare the prognostic performance of the Glasgow-Blatchford (GB), pre-endoscopy Rockall (PER), and modified early warning (MEW) scores for predicting MT in patients with unstable UGIB. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study included patients with UGIB from March 2016 to February 2018. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed to examine the prognostic performance of the GB, PER, and MEW scoring systems. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for MT, after adjusting for relevant covariates. The primary outcome was MT.
resultsOf the 484 included patients with unstable UGIB, 19 (3.9%) received an MT. The areas under the curves (AUCs) of the GB, PER, and MEW scores for MT were 0.577 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.531-0.621], 0.570 (95% CI, 0.525-0.615), and 0.767 (95% CI, 0.727-0.804), respectively. The AUC of the MEW score was significantly different from those of the GB and PER scores. In multivariate analysis, MEW score was independently associated with MT in patients with unstable UGIB (odds ratio, 1.495; 95% CI, 1.100-2.033;
conclusionIn unstable UGIB patients, MEW score had the best prognostic performance for MT among three scoring systems.
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.