ReviewFrontiers in medicine2025
Risk stratification and scoring systems in upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: review of performance and limitations in the emergency department.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A unified prognostic tool for predicting critical outcomes in gastrointestinal bleeding.Medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of A4C, CHAMPS, and CAGIB Scores for Risk Stratification in Hemodialysis Patients with Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Gastrointestinal bleeding care across hospital and EMS settings in the Almaty region: a cross-sectional survey of organization, practice, and service capacity.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- The tale of two numbers: red cell distribution width and albumin ratio in gastrointestinal bleeding.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Role of Radiology in Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
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
Background: Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), which includes both upper GIB (variceal and non-variceal) and lower GIB, represents a significant cause of emergency department referrals. Main body: Given the potential risks of blood transfusion, re-bleeding, and mortality in these patients, it is essential to establish a system for prioritizing critical patients. Several risk stratification scoring systems have been developed based on patients' clinical characteristics and/or endoscopic findings. However, the optimal scoring system for each clinical scenario remains uncertain. Conclusion: In this study, we design the first comprehensive review and compare almost all of the upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), as well as lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) risk stratification scoring systems individually regarding their advantages, disadvantages, and limitations.
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.