ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of the Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) Score With the Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS) and Rockall Score (RS) in Predicting the Need for Intensive Care Among Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 30-day mortality prediction in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Incremental value of the prognostic nutritional index with ABC and Rockall scores.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe present study aims to compare the quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) score, Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), and Rockall score (RS) in predicting intensive care needs among patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding at a tertiary care medical college hospital in South India, thus helping to determine the most useful scores in predicting in-hospital adverse events among the three. METHODOLOGY: This single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024, after obtaining institutional review board approval from Pushpagiri Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Tiruvalla, Kerala, India. The investigator assessed the patients' characteristics (age, sex, presenting complaints, comorbidities), hemodynamic status, and laboratory variables at presentation in order to calculate the RS, GBS, and qSOFA for each patient. The patient's course in the hospital, including pre- and post-endoscopy characteristics and events such as recurrent bleeding, hematemesis, melena, mortality, intensive care, blood product transfusions, prolonged hospitalization, and the presence of hemodynamic instability, was documented.
resultsOut of the total 95 patients, 67.4% were aged over 60 years, with 66% being male. Chronic liver disease, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus were present in more than half of the patients. Hematemesis was the predominant presentation (51.6%), while tachycardia, tachypnea, and elevated blood urea nitrogen levels were noted more frequently. The patients were classified into low-risk and high-risk groups based on the three scores and were compared for intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, rebleeding, and death. A significant difference was noted between the GBS and the incidence of rebleeding (p-value: 0.043). The scores were compared for ICU admission using different parameters, and it was found that qSOFA had 100% sensitivity but very low specificity (10.59%), GBS had 92.11% sensitivity, with the lowest negative predictive value (NPV) at 33.33% and the highest positive predictive value (PPV) at 81.4%, and RS had a sensitivity of 96.08%, with intermediate NPV and PPV.
conclusionGBS provided the best overall prediction accuracy for the need for ICU admission in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding patients, while qSOFA demonstrated extremely high sensitivity as a screening tool.
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.