ArticleBMC gastroenterology2019
AIMS65 scoring system is comparable to Glasgow-Blatchford score or Rockall score for prediction of clinical outcomes for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05876741 (Validation of Prognostic Accuracy of ABC), which is not on this map. Cited by 45 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.
Validation of Prognostic Accuracy of ABC ( Age, Blood Urea Nitrogen , Co-morbidities ) and Horibe Pre-endoscopy Scoring Systems in Patients With Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Sohag University Hospital .
Who cites it
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a model to predict rebleeding within three days after endoscopic hemostasis for high-risk peptic ulcer bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Trial
- A Comparison of the ABC and AIMS65 Scores in Predicting Outcomes in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Triage for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department: a comparison of risk scoring systems.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Prognostic value of the systemic immune-inflammation index in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective single-center cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Comprehensive review on the current management of upper-GI bleed.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Review
- Validation of the C-WATCH score for predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding at a tertiary public hospital in Lima, Peru.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Comparative predictive value of AIMS65, Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scoring Systems in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Explainable machine learning predicts mortality in critically ill patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a MIMIC-IV study with external validation.BMC gastroenterology · 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
- Comparison of risk assessment scores of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Proposal for a simplified score.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Machine Learning Models Versus Conventional Clinical Risk Scores.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Are Scoring Systems Useful in Predicting Mortality from Upper GI Bleeding in Geriatric Patients?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lactate to albumin ratio as a prognosis predictor in gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Predictive Utility of Pre- and Post-Endoscopic Risk Scores and Hemodynamic Indexes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- The future of critical care: AI-powered mortality prediction for acute variceal gastrointestinal bleeding and acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding patients.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- Comparison of Four Scoring Systems for Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Cureus · 2024Article
- Treatment of Factor-Xa Inhibitor-associated Bleeding with Andexanet Alfa or 4 Factor PCC: A Multicenter Feasibility Retrospective Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2023Observational
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRisk stratification for patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal (NVUGI) bleeding is crucial for successful prognosis and treatment. Recently, the AIMS65 score has been used to predict mortality risk and rebleeding. The purpose of this study was to compare the performance of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score in Korea.
methodsWe retrospectively studied 512 patients with NVUGI bleeding who were treated at a university hospital between 2013 and 2016. The AIMS65, GBS, Rockall score, and pre-endoscopic Rockall score were used to stratify patients based on their bleeding risk. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes were composite clinical outcomes of mortality, rebleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Each scoring system was compared using the receiver-operating curve (ROC).
resultsA total of 17 patients (3.3%) died and rebleeding developed in 65 patients (12.7%). Eighty-six patients (16.8%) required ICU admission. The AIMS65 (area under the curve (AUC) 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.88)) seemed to be superior to the GBS (AUC 0.72, 0.68-0.76), the Rockall score (AUC 0.75, 0.71-0.79), or the pre-endoscopic Rockall score (AUC 0.74, 0.70-0.78) in predicting in-hospital mortality, but there was not a statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.07). The AUC value of the AIMS65 was not significantly different from the other scoring systems in prediction of rebleeding, endoscopic intervention, or ICU admission.
conclusionsThe AIMS65 score in NVUGI bleeding patients was comparable to the GBS or Rockall scoring systems when predicting the mortality, rebleeding, or ICU admission. Because AIMS65 is a much easier, readily calculated scoring system compared to the others, we would recommend using the AIMS65 in daily practice.
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.