ArticleDigestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparison of Pre-Endoscopic C-WATCH Score with Established Risk Assessment Tools in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the C-WATCH score for predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding at a tertiary public hospital in Lima, Peru.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Risk stratification and scoring systems in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: review of performance and limitations in the emergency department.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUse of risk scores for early assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is recommended by various guidelines. We compared Cologne-WATCH (C-WATCH) score with Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS), and pre-endoscopic RS (p-RS).
methodsPatients with UGIB between January and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for 30-day mortality and composite endpoints risk of complications and need for intervention using areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUROC). Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients with UGIB on admission and in-hospital UGIB.
resultsA total of 252 patients were identified (67.5% men, mean age 63.8 ± 14.9 years). In-hospital UGIB occurred in 49.6%. AUROCs for 30-day mortality, risk of complications, and need for intervention (not applicable to RS) were 0.684 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.606-0.763), 0.665 (95% CI: 0.594-0.735), and 0.694 (95% CI: 0.612-0.775) for C-WATCH score, 0.724 (95% CI: 0.653-0.796) and 0.751 (95% CI: 0.687-0.815) for RS, 0.652 (95% CI: 0.57-0.735), 0.653 (95% CI: 0.579-0.727), and 0.673 (95% CI: 0.602-0.745) for p-RS and 0.652 (95% CI: 0.572-0.732), 0.663 (95% CI: 0.592-0.734), and 0.752 (95% CI: 0.683-0.821) for GBS. RS outperformed pre-endoscopic scores in predicting risk of complications, while there were no significant differences between pre-endoscopic scores except GBS outperforming p-RS in predicting need for intervention. The subgroup analysis obtained similar results. Positive predictive values for patients with estimated low risk for all three endpoints (C-WATCH score ≤1, RS ≤2, p-RS <1, and GBS ≤1) were 89%, 69%, 78%, and 92%.
conclusionC-WATCH score performed similar to the established pre-endoscopic risk scores in patients with UGIB regarding relevant patient-related endpoints with no significant differences between both the subgroups.
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.