ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2023
Construction of a prediction model for rebleeding in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in European journal of medical research, 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.
- Pyroptosis-immunity-microbiome axis in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: mechanisms, risk prediction, and individualized strategies.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Stress hyperglycemia ratio predicts adverse outcomes in emergency department patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.PloS one · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a prognostic model for children with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Patient Blood Management: A Systematic Review of Predictive, Diagnostic, and Decision Support Applications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Risk factors and prediction model for rebleeding in grade IIb peptic ulcer patients after endoscopy.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Construction of a predictive model for rebleeding risk in upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients based on clinical indicators such asFrontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of rebleeding in patients with esophageal and gastric varices hemorrhage.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Predictive value of blood coagulation and routine blood indices for rebleeding after endoscopic treatment in hepatitis B-related cirrhotic patients with esophagogastric fundal varices: a logistic regression model analysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Risk factor analysis and predictive model construction for postoperative bleeding in early esophageal cancer.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of rebleeding in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains despite advances in intervention approaches. Therefore, early prediction of the risk of rebleeding could help to greatly reduce the mortality rate in these patients. We aim to develop and validate a new prediction model to predict the probability of rebleeding in patients with AUGIB.
methodsA total of 1170 AUGIB patients who completed the procedure of emergency gastroscopy within 48 h of admission were included. Logistic regression analyses were performed to construct a new prediction model. A receiver operating characteristic curve, a line graph, and a calibration and decision curve were used to assess the predictive performance of our new prediction model and compare its performance with that of the AIMS65 scoring system to determine the predictive value of our prediction model.
resultsA new prediction model was constructed based on Lactic acid (LAC), neutrophil percentage (NEUTP), platelet (PLT), albumin (ALB), and D-DIMER. The AUC values and their 95% confidence interval (CI) for the new prediction model and the AIMS65 score were 0.746 and 0.619, respectively, and 0.697-0.795 and 0.567-0.670, respectively. In the training group, the C index values based on the prediction model and the AIMS65 scoring system were 0.720 and 0.610, respectively. In the validation group, the C index values based on the prediction model and the AIMS65 scoring system were 0.828 and 0.667, respectively. The decision and calibration curve analysis also showed that the prediction model was superior to the AIMS65 scoring system in terms of accuracy of prediction, consistency, and net clinical benefit.
conclusionThe prediction model can predict the probability of rebleeding in AUGIB patients after endoscopic hemostasis therapy.
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.