ArticleMedicine2019
The prediction value of scoring systems in Mallory-Weiss syndrome patients.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mallory-Weiss syndrome in four hemodialysis patients: a case study.BMC nephrology · 2023Article
- International multicenter study comparing demographics, therapy and outcomes in bleeding from Mallory Weiss tears and peptic ulcers.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Adenocarcinoma of the Gastroesophageal Junction Masquerading as Mallory-Weiss Syndrome.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mallory-Weiss syndrome (MWS) is a relatively less common cause of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There is limited data on whether scoring systems could be used to predict the clinical outcomes in patients with bleeding due to MWS. The aim of our study is to evaluate whether the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), AIMS65, and shocking index are effective in predicting the clinical outcomes of MWS.One hundred twenty-eight patients from January 2010 to January 2017 with MWS in middle China were enrolled. Clinical features such as age, gender, causes of vomiting, endoscopic findings, GBS, AIMS65, and shocking index were recorded. The clinical outcomes including endoscopic treatment and transfusion were analyzed.MWS accounted for 6.1% of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Male-to-female ratio was 3.6:1 and median age was 51 years. Patients between 40 and 60 years were more commonly affected; 43.8% of MWS was caused by overdrinking followed by underlying gastric diseases (33.6%). However, for female patients alone, underlying gastric diseases were the leading cause (42.9%). The tears were usually single and most frequently located on the left lateral wall. In receiver-operating characteristic curve analyses, GBS system and shocking index were useful in predicting transfusion (0.856 vs 0.675). But for endoscopic intervention, these scoring systems are not helpful (P > .05).Apart from drinking, underlying gastric disease is another important cause of MWS especially for female patients and should be paid more attention under endoscopy examination. GBS system and shocking index can be used to predict transfusion.
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.