ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
The efficacy and comparison of upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scoring systems on predicting clinical outcomes among emergency unit patients.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lactate-to-Hemoglobin Ratio as a Predictor of 30-Day Mortality in Patients with Non-Variceal Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Validation of the C-WATCH score for predicting severity in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding at a tertiary public hospital in Lima, Peru.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Inflammatory indices as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Observational
- Clinical practice patterns in the pre-endoscopic management of individuals presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of an international survey.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Clinical Impact of Red Blood Cell Transfusion Location on Gastrointestinal Bleeding Outcomes: Emergency Department vs. Inpatient Unit.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
backgroundGastrointestinal bleeding is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among emergency unit patients. Several scoring systems are verified for predicting hospitalization and mortality such as Glasgow Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS), AIMS65 score, Rockall score (RS), and International Bleeding Risk Score (INBS; ABC score). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and predictive value of these scoring systems.
methodsAdult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were retrospectively enrolled. The age, gender, complaints at admission, vitals and examination results, laboratory findings, outcomes, blood transfusion status, and endoscopic interventions were all reported, and GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores were calculated individually for all enrollies.
resultsA total of 311 patients were included. The median age of participants was 70 years (IQR (25-75%): 59-81), and 202 (65%) of them were male. The efficacy of all four scoring systems (GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC)) in predicting hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05 for all). ROC-AUC analysis was revealed that while GBS is the most beneficial in predicting hospitalization, INBS (ABC) has the best predictive value on mortality. Besides, the only scoring model with predictive value in determining the need for endoscopic intervention was RS (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe present study showed that, among adult emergency unit patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, GBS, AIMS65, RS, and INBS (ABC) scores could successfully predict hospitalization, need of blood transfusion, determination of high- and low-risk patients, and mortality. However, the only scoring system that could be used to determine the need of endoscopic intervention is RS. Finally, we believe further studies with prospective enrollment would be beneficial for more accurate conclusions.
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.