ArticleClinical endoscopy2022
Risk Stratification in Cancer Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford, Rockall and AIMS65, and Development of a New Scoring System.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative predictive value of AIMS65, Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scoring Systems in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- A unified prognostic tool for predicting critical outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding.Medicine · 2026Article
- Are Scoring Systems Useful in Predicting Mortality from Upper GI Bleeding in Geriatric Patients?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- The Accuracy of Pre-Endoscopic Scores for Mortality Prediction in Patients with Upper GI Bleeding and No Endoscopy Performed.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsFew studies have measured the accuracy of prognostic scores for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) among cancer patients. Thereby, we compared the prognostic scores for predicting major outcomes in cancer patients with UGIB. Secondarily, we developed a new model to detect patients who might require hemostatic care.
methodsA prospective research was performed in a tertiary hospital by enrolling cancer patients admitted with UGIB. Clinical and endoscopic findings were obtained through a prospective database. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to gauge the power of each score.
resultsFrom April 2015 to May 2016, 243 patients met the inclusion criteria. The AIMS65 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.85) best predicted intensive care unit admission, while the Glasgow-Blatchford score best predicted blood transfusion (AUC 0.82) and the low-risk group (AUC 0.92). All scores failed to predict hemostatic therapy and rebleeding. The new score was superior (AUC 0.74) in predicting hemostatic therapy. The AIMS65 (AUC 0.84) best predicted in-hospital mortality.
conclusionThe scoring systems for prognostication were validated in the group of cancer patients with UGIB. A new score was developed to predict hemostatic therapy. Following this result, future prospective research should be performed to validate the new score.
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.