ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of risk scores for predicting adverse outcomes in acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.