ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2022
Evaluation of Six Preendoscopy Scoring Systems to Predict Outcomes for Older Adults with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Triage for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department: a comparison of risk scoring systems.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of the ABC score in predicting 30-day mortality in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding at Muhimbili National Hospital, Tanzania: a single-center retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Prognostic Accuracy of New Scores for In-Hospital Outcomes in Cirrhotic Patients With Esophageal Variceal Bleeding.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- Predicting mortality and readmission in UGIB: a comparative study of rockall, glasgow-blatchford, and AIMS65 scores.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Article
- Predictive Significance of the ABC Score for Early Re-Hemorrhage and In-Hospital Mortality in High-Risk Variceal Bleeding among Cirrhotic Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Interpretations of the Role of Plasma Albumin in Prognostic Indices: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Novel risk score for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in elderly patients: a single-centre retrospective study.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Performance of the New ABC and MAP(ASH) Scores in the Prediction of Relevant Outcomes in Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the ability of six preendoscopic scoring systems (ABC, AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS), MAP(ASH), pRS, and
methodsThis was a retrospective study of 602 older adults (age ≥ 65) presenting with UGIB at Zhongda Hospital Southeast University from January 2015 to June 2021. Six scoring systems were used to analyze all patients.
resultsABC had the largest area under the curve (AUC) (0.833; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.801-0.862) and was significantly higher than pRS 0.696 (95% CI: 0.658-0.733,
conclusionsMortality, intervention, rebleeding, and ICU admission in UGIB for older adults can be predicted well using MAP(ASH). ABC is the most accurate for predicting mortality. Except for rebleeding, GBS has an acceptable performance in predicting ICU admission, mortality, and intervention. AIMS65 and
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.