ArticleBMC gastroenterology2022
Comparisons of six endoscopy independent scoring systems for the prediction of clinical outcomes for elderly and younger patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A unified prognostic tool for predicting critical outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding.Medicine · 2026Article
- New machine-learning models outperform conventional risk assessment tools in Gastrointestinal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Limits of pre-endoscopic scoring systems in geriatric patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Importance of risk assessment, endoscopic hemostasis, and recent advancements in the management of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- MH-STRALP: A scoring system for prognostication in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the predictive ability of six pre-endoscopic scoring systems (ABC, AIMS65, GBS, MAP(ASH), pRS, and T-score) for outcomes of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in elderly and younger patients.
methodsA retrospective study of 1260 patients, including 530 elderly patients (age [Formula: see text] 65) and 730 younger patients (age < 65) presenting with UGIB, was performed at Zhongda Hospital Southeast University, from January 2015 to December 2020. Six scoring systems were used.
resultsABC had the largest areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.827 (0.792-0.858), and 0.958 (0.929-0.987) for elderly and younger groups for predicting mortality respectively. The differences of the AUCs for predicting the outcome of mortality and rebleeding between the two groups were significant for ABC and pRS (p < 0.01). For intervention prediction, significant differences were observed only for pRS [AUC 0.623 (0.578-0.669) vs. 0.699 (0.646-0.752)] (p < 0.05) between the two groups. For intensive care unit (ICU) admission, the AUC for MAP (ASH) [0.791 (0.718-0.865) vs. 0.891 (0.831-0.950)] and pRS [0.610 (0.514-0.706) vs. 0.891 (0.699-0.865)] were more effective for the younger group (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01, respectively). For comparison of scoring systems in the same cohort, ABC was significantly higher than pRS: AUC 0.710 (0.699-0.853, p < 0.05) and T-score 0.670 (0.628-0.710, p < 0.01) for predicting mortality in the elderly group. In the younger group, ABC was significantly higher than GBS and T-score (p < 0.01). MAP(ASH) performs the best in predicting intervention in both groups.
conclusionsABC and pRS are more accurate for predicting mortality and rebleeding in the younger cohort, and pRS may not be suitable for elderly patients. There was no difference between the two study populations for GBS, AIMS65, and T-score. Except for ICU admission, MAP(ASH) showed fair accuracy for both cohorts.
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.