ArticleBMC geriatrics2024
Prediction of 30-day in-hospital mortality in older UGIB patients using a simplified risk score and comparison with AIMS65 score.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Scoring Systems Useful in Predicting Mortality from Upper GI Bleeding in Geriatric Patients?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
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
backgroundUpper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) in older patients is associated with substantial in-hospital morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a simplified risk score for predicting 30-day in-hospital mortality in this population.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on data from 1899 UGIB patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to a single medical center between January 2010 and December 2019. An additional cohort of 330 patients admitted from January 2020 to October 2021 was used for external validation. Variable selection was performed using five distinct methods, and models were generated using generalized linear models, random forest, support vector machine, and k-nearest neighbors approaches. The developed score, "ABCAP," incorporated Albumin < 30 g/L, Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN) > 7.5 mmol/L, Cancer presence, Altered mental status, and Pulse rate > 100/min, each assigned a score of 1. Internal and external validation procedures compared the ABCAP score with the AIMS65 score.
resultsIn internal validation, the ABCAP score demonstrated robust predictive capability with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.878 (95% CI: 0.824-0.932), which was significantly better than the AIMS65 score (AUC: 0.827, 95% CI: 0.751-0.904), as revealed by the DeLong test (p = 0.048). External validation of the ABCAP score resulted in an AUC of 0.799 (95% CI: 0.709-0.889), while the AIMS65 score yielded an AUC of 0.743 (95% CI: 0.647-0.838), with no significant difference between the two scores based on the DeLong test (p = 0.16). However, the ABCAP score at the 3-5 score level demonstrated superior performance in identifying high-risk patients compared to the AIMS65 score. This score exhibited consistent predictive accuracy across variceal and non-variceal UGIB subgroups.
conclusionsThe ABCAP score incorporates easily obtained clinical variables and demonstrates promising predictive ability for 30-day in-hospital mortality in older UGIB patients. It allows effective mortality risk stratification and showed slightly better performance than the AIMS65 score. Further cohort validation is required to confirm generalizability.
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.