ArticleJAMA network open2020
External Validation of the Oakland Score to Assess Safe Hospital Discharge Among Adult Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the US.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06409988 (External Validation of the SHA2PE Score and Its Comparison to the Oakland Score for the Prediction of Safe Discharge in Patients With Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
External Validation of the SHA2PE Score and Its Comparison to the Oakland Score for the Prediction of Safe Discharge in Patients With Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Risk Scores for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2022Pooled it
- Guideline
- Guideline
- Evidence-based, cost-effective management of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. An algorithm of the journal of trauma and acute care surgery emergency general surgery algorithms work group.The journal of trauma and acute care surgery · 2026Article
- Clinical utility of the Oakland score in rectal bleeding: Implications for admission decisions and cost efficiency.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Article
- Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: An Update and a Practical Diagnostic Approach.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A unified prognostic tool for predicting critical outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding.Medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Oakland score to identify low-risk patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding performs well among emergency department patients.International journal of emergency medicine · 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
- Delphi consensus statement for the management of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Model Compared With Clinical Risk Scores for Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Comparison of risk scores for predicting adverse outcomes in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.Heliyon · 2024Article
- External validation of the SHASurgical endoscopy · 2024Observational
- Single center assessment of the role of Oakland score among patients admitted for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Evaluation and treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking anticoagulants presenting to the emergency department.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Predicting the need for urgent endoscopic intervention in lower gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective review.BMC emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Management of an undetectable Diverticular Bleed: A Case Report and Literature review.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), which manifests as blood in the colon or anorectum, is a common reason for hospitalization. In most patients, LGIB stops spontaneously with no in-hospital intervention. A risk score that could identify patients at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes could help improve the triage process and allow greater numbers of patients to receive outpatient management of LGIB. Objective: To externally validate the Oakland Score, which was previously developed using a score threshold of 8 points to identify patients with LGIB who are at low risk of adverse outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prognostic study was conducted in 140 US hospitals in the Hospital Corporation of America network. A total of 46 179 adult patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to the hospital with a primary diagnosis of LGIB between June 1, 2016, and October 15, 2018, were initially identified using diagnostic codes. Of those, 51 patients were excluded because they were more likely to have upper gastrointestinal bleeding, leaving a study population of 46 128 patients with LGIB. For the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, an additional 8061 patients were excluded because they were missing data on Oakland Score components or clinical outcomes, resulting in 38 067 patients included in the analysis. The study used area under the receiver operating characteristic curves with 95% CIs for external validation of the model. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each score threshold (≤8 points, ≤9 points, and ≤10 points). Data were analyzed from October 16, 2018, to September 4, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Identification of patients who met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital and comparison of the performance of 2 score thresholds (≤8 points vs ≤10 points). Safe discharge was defined as the absence of blood transfusion, rebleeding, hemostatic intervention, hospital readmission, and death. Results: Among 46 128 adult patients with LGIB, the mean (SD) age was 70.1 (16.5) years; 23 091 patients (50.1%) were female. Of those, 22 074 patients (47.9%) met the criteria for safe discharge from the hospital. In this group, the mean (SD) age was 67.9 (18.1) years, and 11 056 patients (50.1%) were female. In the statistical analysis of the Oakland Score, which included only the 38 067 patients with complete data, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for safe discharge was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.87-0.87). An Oakland Score threshold of 8 points or lower identified 3305 patients (8.7%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 98.4% and 16.0%, respectively. Extension of the Oakland Score threshold to 10 points or lower identified 6770 patients (17.8%), with a sensitivity and specificity for safe discharge of 96.0% and 31.9%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the Oakland Score consistently identified patients with acute LGIB who were at low risk of experiencing adverse outcomes and whose conditions could safely be managed without hospitalization. The score threshold to identify low-risk patients could be extended from 8 points or lower to 10 points or lower to allow identification of a greater proportion of low-risk patients.
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.