ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2024
Assessment of Endoscopy-Based Scoring Systems for Prognostication in Ulcerative Colitis: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 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.
- A Scoping Review of Endoscopic Assessment Considering Disease Extent in Ulcerative Colitis: Insights for the Artificial Intelligence Era.Gut and liver · 2026Article
- Chemical Necrosectomy for Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Should We Get "High" On Alcohol?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Multi-task deep learning framework for enhancing Mayo endoscopic score classification in ulcerative colitis.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveEndoscopy-based scoring systems, including Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES), Modified Mayo Endoscopic Score (MMES), and Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) Score, have been introduced to evaluate UC prognosis. This study aims to compare their predictive capacity for clinical outcomes in UC patients.
methodsConsecutive UC patients from a tertiary hospital were included. The primary outcome was acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC), and secondary outcomes were UC-related admission, medication treatment escalation, disease extension and surgery. Predictive performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
resultsAmong 300 patients, 15.3% developed ASUC. Robust correlations were observed among the three scoring systems and were with elevated serum inflammatory markers. The DUBLIN score exhibited superior predictive ability for UC-related admission (AUC 0.751; 95%CI 0.698-0.799) and medication treatment escalation (AUC 0.735; 95% CI 0.681-0.784). No statistical differences were found among three scoring systems for predicting ASUC, disease extension, and surgery. Employing respective cut-offs of 2, 11.25, and 3, higher MES (HR = 3.859, 95% CI 1.636-9.107, p = 0.002), MMES (HR = 3.352, 95% CI 1.879-5.980, p < 0.001), and DUBLIN score (HR = 5.619, 95% CI 2.378-13.277, p < 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of developing ASUC.
conclusionThe DUBLIN score, assessing the overall inflammatory burden of the intestinal tract, outperforms the MMES in predicting admission and medication treatment escalation related to UC. Its integration into clinical practice has the potential to enhance risk stratification for patients with UC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39105877What 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.