ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2023
Pre-Endoscopic Scores Predicting Low-Risk Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative performance of pre-interventional prognostic scores in predicting 30-day mortality and ICU admission in gastrointestinal bleeding.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative predictive value of AIMS65, Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scoring Systems in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Identifying Low-Risk Patients with Cirrhosis and Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding That May Not Require Urgent Endoscopy.Advances in therapy · 2026Article
- Lactate to hemoglobin ratio predicts short and long term mortality in critically ill patients with Gastrointestinal bleeding.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of Timing of Endoscopy on Mortality in Non-variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Cohort Study :.Galen medical journal · 2025Article
- Predictive Utility of Pre- and Post-Endoscopic Risk Scores and Hemodynamic Indexes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the Emergency Department.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Evaluating The Glasgow Blatchford Score for Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Stratification in A Community Hospital: A Retrospective Study.Spartan medical research journal · 2025Article
- Impact of Urgent Versus Early Endoscopy on Outcomes in Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Retrospective Study.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeveral risk scores have attempted to risk stratify patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) who are at a lower risk of requiring hospital-based interventions or negative outcomes including death. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare predictive abilities of pre-endoscopic scores in prognosticating the absence of adverse events in patients with UGIB.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, and ISI Web of knowledge from inception to February 2023. All fully published studies assessing a pre-endoscopic score in patients with UGIB were included. The primary outcome was a composite score for the need of a hospital-based intervention (endoscopic therapy, surgery, angiography, or blood transfusion). Secondary outcomes included: mortality, rebleeding, or the individual endpoints of the composite outcome. Both proportional and comparative analyses were performed.
resultsThirty-eight studies were included from 2153 citations, (
conclusionsA GBS cut-off of one or less prognosticated low-risk patients the best. Expanding the GBS cut-off to 2 maintains prognostic accuracy while allowing more patients to be managed safely as outpatients. The evidence is limited by the number, homogeneity, quality, and generalizability of available data and subjectivity of deciding on clinical impact. Additional, comparative and, ideally, interventional studies are needed.
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.