Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32552662›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2020

Validation of a new risk score system for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Min Seong Kim, Hee Seok Moon, In Sun Kwon, Jae Ho Park, Ju Seok Kim, Sun Hyung Kang, Jae Kyu Sung, Eaum Seok Lee, Seok Hyun Kim, Byung Seok Lee and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Acute Upper Non-variceal and Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2022
    Review
  14. Endovascular Treatment of Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Min Seong KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Hee Seok MoonDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea. mhs1357@cnuh.co.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8806-2163
In Sun KwonClinical Trials Center, Chungnam National University Hospital, Daejeon, 34952, South Korea.
Jae Ho ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Ju Seok KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Sun Hyung KangDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Jae Kyu SungDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Eaum Seok LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Seok Hyun KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Byung Seok LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.
Hyun Yong JeongDivision of Gastroenterology, Departmentof Internal Medicine, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University School of Medicine, 282 Munhwa-ro, Jung-gu, Daejeon, 35015, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecently, a new international bleeding score was developed to predict 30-day hospital mortality in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, the efficacy of this newly developed scoring system has not been extensively investigated. We aimed to validate a new scoring system for predicting 30-day mortality in patients with non-variceal UGIB and determine whether a higher score is associated with re-bleeding, length of hospital stay, and endoscopic failure.

methodsA retrospective study was performed on 905 patients with acute non-variceal UGIB who were examined in our hospital between January 2013 and December 2017. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic findings, re-bleeding, admission, and mortality were reviewed. The 30-day mortality rate of the new international bleeding risk score was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curves and compared to the pre-endoscopy Rockall score, AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford score, and Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva score. To verify the variable for the 30-day mortality of the new scoring system, we performed multivariate logistic regression using our data and further analyzed the score items.

resultsThe new international bleeding scoring system showed higher receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve values in predicting mortality (area under ROC curve 0.958; [95% confidence interval (CI)]), compared with such as AIMS65 (AUROC, 0.832; 95%CI, 0.806-0.856; P < 0.001), PNED (AUROC, 0.865; 95%CI, 0.841-0.886; P < 0.001), Pre-RS (AUROC, 0.802; 95%CI, 0.774-0.827; P < 0.001), and GBS (AUROC, 0.765; 95%CI, 0.736-0.793; P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis was performed using our data and showed that the 30-day mortality rate was related to multiple comorbidities, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, albumin, syncope at first visit, and endoscopic failure within 24 h during the first admission. In addition, in the high-score group, relatively long hospital stay, re-bleeding, and endoscopic failure were observed.

conclusionThis is a preliminary report of a new bleeding score which may predict 30-day mortality better than the other scoring systems. High-risk patients could be screened using this new scoring system to predict 30-day mortality. The use of this scoring system seemed to improve the outcomes of non-variceal UGIB patients in this study, through proper management and intervention.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexAgedFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveUpper Gastrointestinal TractGastrointestinal bleedingMortalityRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID32552662
PMCPMC7301517

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.