ArticlePeerJ2025
Predicting mortality in geriatric patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a retrospective comparative study of four scoring systems.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. 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.
- Comparative Predictive Performance of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk Scores and the CALLY Index in Geriatric Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Machine Learning Models Versus Conventional Clinical Risk Scores.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Gender and age differences in the global burden of peptic ulcers: an analysis based on GBD data from 1990 to 2021.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in geriatric patients. Risk stratification tools such as AIMS65, Glasgow Blatchford Score (GBS), T-score, and Age, Blood tests, and Comorbidities (ABC) score are frequently used to predict outcomes in PUB patients. This study aims to compare the predictive performance of these four scoring systems in geriatric patients with PUB. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 65 years and older who were diagnosed with PUB between January 1, 2019, and January 1, 2024, in a tertiary care hospital. Data collected included demographic information, clinical presentation, laboratory results, and comorbidities. AIMS65, GBS, T-Score, and ABC score were calculated for each patient. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 315 patients were included in the study, with an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 7.9%. AIMS65 had the highest area under the curve (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.829), followed by the ABC score (AUROC: 0.775). The GBS (AUROC: 0.694) and T-score (AUROC: 0.526) demonstrated lower predictive performance. Pairwise comparisons showed a statistically significant difference between the AIMS65 and GBS ( Conclusion: The AIMS65 and ABC scoring systems are more effective in predicting in-hospital mortality in geriatric patients with PUB compared to the GBS and T-Score. Implementing these tools in clinical practice could improve risk stratification and decision-making processes in managing high-risk elderly patients.
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.