Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2025
The role of the Lactate-to-Albumin ratio in predicting ICU admission and mortality in patients with UGIB presenting to the ED: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 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-albumin ratio, C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio, and prognostic nutritional index in acute and critical care: A focused mini-review.World journal of critical care medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond lactate: prognostic value of metabolic and biochemical parameters in methanol poisoning - a retrospective observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Early lactate dynamics for short-term mortality in emergency department sepsis.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Prognostic value of lactate-to-hemoglobin ratio in nontraumatic critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Observational
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
backgroundUpper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a common and potentially life-threatening condition frequently encountered in emergency departments (EDs). Early risk stratification tools are essential for predicting outcomes such as intensive care unit (ICU) admission and in-hospital mortality.
objectivesTo evaluate the predictive performance of the serum lactate-to-albumin ratio (LAR) for ICU admission and in-hospital mortality in patients presenting to the ED with UGIB.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 181 patients who presented to a university hospital ED with UGIB. Demographic characteristics, laboratory parameters, medication use, and clinical outcomes were recorded. The diagnostic performance of LAR, blood urea nitrogen (BUN) -to-albumin ratio (BAR), and AIMS65 scores for ICU admission and mortality was assessed using ROC analysis and multivariate logistic regression.
resultsLAR was significantly elevated in patients requiring ICU admission (p < 0.001). LAR showed a similar predictive value to AIM65 and a superior predictive value to BAR for both ICU admission and in-hospital mortality, compared to BAR and AIM65. The area under the curve (AUC) for LAR was 0.789 for ICU admission and 0.858 for mortality. Multivariate analysis identified LAR, underlying liver disease, and high AIMS65 score as independent predictors of in-hospital mortality.
conclusionThe lactate-to-albumin ratio is a simple, readily available, and effective biomarker for predicting adverse outcomes in UGIB patients. It may serve as a rapid and practical decision-making tool in emergency settings, complementing or potentially replacing existing scoring systems. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: not applicable.
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.