Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39640794›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Comparison of risk scores for predicting adverse outcomes in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Chenyang Li, Ningning Zhang, Yuying Zhang, Nan Guo, Xiaomeng Sun, Shuling Li, Yan Xu, Tao Wang, Chao Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Chenyang LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Ningning ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yuying ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Nan GuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Xiaomeng SunDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shuling LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yan XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Tao WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Chao ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding is a common emergency in gastroenterology. Currently, there is insufficient information to predict adverse outcomes in patients with acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Our study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the clinical risk scores currently utilized and their ability to predict significant outcomes in lower gastrointestinal bleeding. Methods: We conducted a prognostic study of patients hospitalized for acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding who underwent colonoscopy or angiography at a single-center hospital between January 2015 and October 2023. Adverse outcomes associated with ALGIB included rebleeding, blood transfusion, hemostatic interventions, and in-hospital death. We calculated three risk scores at admission (Oakland, Birmingham, SALGIB). We measured the accuracy of these scores using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared them with DeLong's test. Results: 222 patients with confirmed lower gastrointestinal bleeding (aged 64 years, 53-75) were finally included. The most common diagnoses were colorectal cancer (28 %) and hemorrhoids (14 %). The Oakland score, Birmingham score, and SALGIB score displayed comparable performance in predicting any adverse outcome (AUC = 0.54, 0.53, 0.55). However, none of the scores were able to sufficiently discriminate rebleeding, blood transfusion, or hemostatic intervention. Using the Youden index, cutoff points for predicting undesired results were identified for the Oakland score at 13, Birmingham score at 3, and SALGIB score at 2. Conclusions: None of the three scores demonstrated satisfactory discrimination for adverse outcomes. Therefore, it is necessary to develop novel risk stratification scores with higher performance to improve risk stratification in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.

Indexed as

Adverse eventsGastrointestinal hemorrhageLower gastrointestinal tractRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID39640794
PMCPMC11620128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.