ArticleCureus2024
External Validation of the Oakland Score for Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) presents challenges in emergency settings, with incidence influenced by demographic shifts and anticoagulant usage. The Oakland score aids in risk stratification for safe discharge based on clinical and laboratory parameters. However, external validation remains limited. Methods This study validated the Oakland score in a French cohort of patients with acute LGIB and assessed the discriminatory value of the score using the area under the curve (AUC) and then its sensitivity and specificity. Results A retrospective examination of 343 patient records that satisfied the inclusion criteria showed a median score of 14 points and good discriminatory capacity (area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve: 0.83). There was low sensitivity (20.9%) for safe discharge but good specificity (98.5%) when using an 8-point threshold. With a 9-point threshold, the sensitivity was increased to 36.5%, while the specificity remained at 95%. Conclusion Identifying low-risk LGIB patients is accomplished without sacrificing sensitivity by increasing the Oakland score threshold to 9 points. This modification improves patient safety and resource allocation in the emergency room and has been verified by other large series. For wider implementation, additional validation and long-term outcome evaluations are required.
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.