ArticleClinical endoscopy2021
Prospective Comparison of the AIMS65 Score, Glasgow-Blatchford Score, and Rockall Score for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Variceal and Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of risk scores in prediction for the clinical outcomes in patients with acute variceal bleeding.Annals of medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Role of lactulose for prophylaxis against hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhotic patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A randomized trial.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Hourly Blood Urea Nitrogen Trajectories and ICU Mortality Risk in Critically Ill Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.Advances in therapy · 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
- Safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with Lipiodol chemoembolization for advanced colorectal cancer with bleeding: a retrospective single-center clinical study of 119 patients in China.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Characteristics, Risk Stratification, and Outcomes of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Receiving Antithrombotic Therapy.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Argon Plasma Coagulation as Rescue Endoscopic Hemostasis for Acute Variceal Bleeding in Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Cohort Comparison with Band Ligation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Inflammatory indices as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Observational
- Clinical practice patterns in the pre-endoscopic management of individuals presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of an international survey.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Association between a 24-h increase in blood urea nitrogen and clinical outcomes in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a dual-center retrospective cohort study.Therapeutic advances in 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
- Predictors of mortality and rebleeding in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: A prospective hospital-based study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
- Are Scoring Systems Useful in Predicting Mortality from Upper GI Bleeding in Geriatric Patients?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of duration to endoscopy in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: propensity score matching analysis of real-world data from Thailand.BMC gastroenterology · 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
- Hemoglobin, Albumin, Lymphocyte and Platelet Score as a Novel Predictor of Mortality and Rebleeding in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of rebleeding in patients with esophageal and gastric varices hemorrhage.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Comparison of Four Scoring Systems for Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Cureus · 2024Article
- Current status and clinical outcome of endoscopic hemostatic powder in gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective multicenter study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis study aimed to determine the performance of the AIMS65 score (AIMS65), Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and to compare the results between patients with nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB) and those with variceal UGIB (VUGIB).
methodsWe conducted a prospective observational study between March 2016 and December 2017. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed for all outcomes for comparison. The associations of all three scores with mortality were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
resultsOf the total of 337 patients with UGIB, 267 patients (79.2%) had NVUGIB. AIMS65 was significantly associated (odds ratio [OR], 1.735; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.148-2.620), RS was marginally associated (OR, 1.225; 95% CI, 0.973-1.543), but GBS was not associated (OR, 1.017; 95% CI, 0.890-1.163) with mortality risk in patients with UGIB. However, all three scores accurately predicted all other outcomes (all p<0.05) except rebleeding (p>0.05). Only AIMS65 precisely predicted mortality, the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint (all p<0.05) in patients with VUGIB.
conclusionAIMS65 is superior to GBS and RS in predicting mortality in patients with UGIB, and also precisely predicts the need for blood transfusion and the composite endpoint in patients with VUGIB. No scoring system could satisfactorily predict rebleeding in all patients with UGIB.
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.