Observational studyMedicine2019
Comparison of the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall Scores for prediction of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding outcomes in Chinese patients.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- ISG Task Force on Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB)-Comparison of Risk Scores in Nonvariceal Bleeding-A Prospective Multicenter Study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- A unified prognostic tool for predicting critical outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding.Medicine · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of the Combination of Lactate and qSOFA Score for Clinical Outcomes in Cirrhotic Patients with Esophagogastric Variceal Bleeding.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating The Glasgow Blatchford Score for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Stratification in A Community Hospital: A Retrospective Study.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Article
- Risk stratification and scoring systems in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: review of performance and limitations in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of rebleeding in patients with esophageal and gastric varices hemorrhage.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- 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
- The Accuracy of Pre-Endoscopic Scores for Mortality Prediction in Patients with Upper GI Bleeding and No Endoscopy Performed.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Risk stratifying patients with non-varicosic upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage using the Glasgow-Blatchford score: A case series of 91 patients.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 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
- The Clinical Impact of Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scores in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Biopsy in emergency gastroscopy does not increase the risk of rebleeding in patients with Forrest I acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding combined with suspected malignant gastric ulcer: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Glasgow-Blatchford scores (GBS) and Rockall scores (RS) are commonly used for stratifying patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH). Although predictive value of these scoring methods has been extensively validated, their clinical effectiveness remains unclear. The following study evaluated the GBS and RS scoring system with reference to bleeding, needs for further surgery, endoscopic intervention and death, in order to verify their effectiveness and accuracy in clinical application.Patients who presented with NVUGIH, or who were consequently diagnosed with the disease (by endoscopy examination) between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012 were enrolled in the study. GBS and RS scores were compared to predict bleeding, the needs for further surgery, endoscopic intervention, death by ROC curves and AUC value.Among 2977 patients, the pre-endoscopic RS and complete RS score (CRS) were superior to the GBS score (AUC: 0.842 vs 0.804 vs 0.622, respectively) for predicting the mortality risk in patients. The pre-endoscopic RS score predicting re-bleeding was significantly higher than the CRS and the GBS score (AUC: 0.658 vs 0.548 vs 0.528, respectively). In addition, the 3 scoring systems revealed to be poor predictors of surgical operation effectiveness (AUC: 0.589 vs 0.547 vs 0.504, respectively).Our data demonstrated that the GBS and RS scoring systems could be used to predict outcomes in patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
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.