ArticleClinical and experimental gastroenterology2024
Validating the CHAMPS Score: A Novel and Reliable Prognostic Score of Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: advances and future directions in management.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB Scores for Risk Stratification in Hemodialysis Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Analysis of factors associated with 1-year rebleeding in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and a Glasgow- Blatchford Score ≥ 6 based on serological indicators.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, in-Hospital onset, Albumin <2.5 g/dL, altered Mental status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance status ≥2, Steroid use (CHAMPS) score is a novel and promising prognostic tool. We present an initial external validation of the CHAMPS score for predicting mortality in acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB) across multiple clinical outcomes. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted on adult patients with NVUGIB admitted to the Department of Gastroenterology between November 2022 and June 2023. The CHAMPS score performance in predicting in-hospital outcomes was evaluated by employing area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves, followed by a comparative analysis with five pre-existing scores. Results: A total of 140 patients were included in the study. The CHAMPS score showed its highest performance in predicting mortality rates (AUROC = 0.89), significantly outperforming the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) as well as the Albumin level <3.0 mg/dL, International normalized ratio >1.5, altered Mental status, Systolic blood pressure ≤90 mmHg, and age >65 years (AIMS65) score (AUROC = 0.72 and 0.71, respectively; all p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis for bleeding-related and non-bleeding-related mortality further confirmed the robust predictive capability of the CHAMPS score (AUROC = 0.88 and 0.87, respectively). The CHAMPS score failed to predict rebleeding and intervention reliably, exhibiting AUROC values of 0.43 and 0.55, respectively. The optimal CHAMPS score cutoff value for predicting mortality was 3 points, achieving 100% sensitivity and 71.2% specificity. In the low-risk category defined by both CHAMPS and GBS scores, mortality and rebleeding rates were 0%. However, within the CHAMPS score-based low-risk group, 58.8% required intervention, contrasting with a 0% intervention rate for the GBS score-based low-risk group (GBS score ≤1). Conclusion: The CHAMPS score consistently demonstrated a robust predictive performance for mortality (AUROC > 0.8), facilitating the identification of high-risk patients requiring aggressive treatment and low-risk patients in need of localized treatment or safe discharge after successful bleeding control.
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.