Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34967427›Full record

ArticleUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2022

Prediction of adverse outcomes using non-endoscopic scoring systems in patients over 80 years of age who present with the upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department.

Okan Bardakçı, Duygu Sıddıkoğlu, Gökhan Akdur, Güven Şimşek, Ünzile Atalay, Murat Das, Okhan Akdur, Yavuz Beyazit

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Okan BardakçıDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Duygu SıddıkoğluDepartment of Biostatistics, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Gökhan AkdurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Güven ŞimşekDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Ünzile AtalayDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Murat DasDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Okhan AkdurDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Yavuz BeyazitDepartment of Internal Medicine, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Faculty of Medicine, Çanakkale-Turkey.
Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe emergency department (ED) admission rate for elderly patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is increasing. The AIMS65 and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) are two distinct scoring systems proposed to predict in-hospital and post-discharge mortality, length of stay (LOS), and health-related costs in these patients. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of these scoring systems, in conjunction with the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), to predict 30-day mortality and LOS in UGIB patients who are 80 years of age or older

methodsA retrospective analysis was undertaken of 182 patients with non-variceal UGIB who were admitted to the ED of Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Hospital. The AIMS65, GBS, and CCI scores were calculated and adverse patient outcomes were assessed.

resultsThe mean age of patients was 85.59±4.33 years, and 90 (49.5%) of the patients were males. The AIMS65 was superior to the GBS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] 0.877 vs. 0.695, respectively) and CCI (AUROC 0.877 vs. 0.526, respectively) in predicting the 30-day mortality. All three scores performed poorly in predicting the LOS in hospital. The cutoff threshold that maximized sensitivity and specificity for mortality was three for the AIMS65 score (sensitivity, 0.87; specificity, 0.80; negative predictive values [NPV], 0.977; positive predictive values [PPV], 0.392), 14 for GBS (sensitivity, 0.83; specificity, 0.51; NPV, 0.923; PPV, 0.367), and 5 for CCI (sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.22; NPV, 0.946; PPV, 0.145).

conclusionThe AIMS65 is a simple, accurate, and non-endoscopic scoring system that can be performed easily in ED settings. It is superior to GBS and CCI in predicting 30-day mortality in elderly patients with UGIB.

Indexed as

AftercarePatient DischargeAgedAged, 80 and overEmergency Service, HospitalGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansMalePrognosisRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentROC CurveSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID34967427
PMCPMC10443161
OpenAlexW3091960350

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.