Trial reportWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Evaluating Glasgow-Blatchford score for fast-track emergency management of patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
Trial report in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 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.
- Glasgow-Blatchford score for early risk stratification in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Predicting blood transfusion and early endoscopy.International journal of critical illness and injury scienceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common emergency critical illness that requires prompt assessment upon admission to prevent disease deterioration. As a resuscitation mode, the fast track for emergency treatment increases the success rate and improves patient outcomes. However, misuse will consume resources. The Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) is considered to predict the clinical intervention needs for AUGIB patients, guiding diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, clinical research is needed to identify the recommended GBS thresholds that support effective use in AUGIB patients.
aimTo validate the effectiveness of the GBS in establishing a fast track to reduce the time and cost of treatment for patients with AUGIB.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed using the data of 124 cases of AUGIB patients with GBS ≥ 6 treated at the University-Town Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from August 2020 to April 2023. Based on GBS risk stratification, patients were divided into moderate-risk (12 > GBS ≥ 6) and high-risk (GBS ≥ 12) groups. Furthermore, depending on whether a fast track was established after the patients arrived in the emergency department, the patients were categorized into control and fast-track groups. The changes in various indicators, such as length of time in the emergency resuscitation room, door-to-endoscopy time, total blood transfusion volume, hospitalization duration, and hospitalization costs, were compared between the control and fast-track groups under each risk stratification level.
resultsIn the comparison of the aforementioned indicators, the moderate-risk fast-track group did not show any significant differences from the control group (
conclusionEstablishing a fast track for emergency treatment based on GBS risk stratification has assessment value in reducing door-to-endoscopy time, decreasing total blood transfusion volume, and lowering hospitalization costs in patients with AUGIB. GBS ≥ 12 is recommended as the threshold for implementing the fast track for emergency treatment, and its clinical promotion is advised.
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.