Observational studyBMC gastroenterology2025
Predicting mortality and readmission in UGIB: a comparative study of rockall, glasgow-blatchford, and AIMS65 scores.
Observational study in BMC gastroenterology, 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 value of AIMS65, Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scoring Systems in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Systemic Inflammation Response Index (SIRI) and Aggregate Index of Systemic Inflammation (AISI) as Predictors of Mortality in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical practice patterns in the pre-endoscopic management of individuals presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: results of an international survey.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is a frequent emergency requiring prompt risk stratification for effective management. This study evaluates the predictive accuracy of three pre-endoscopic scoring systems-Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS), AIMS65, and pre-endoscopic Rockall Score (pRS)-in forecasting 30-day mortality and hospital readmission among UGIB patients in Iranian tertiary hospitals.
methodsA prospective observational study was conducted at Al-Zahra and Khorshid Hospitals (Isfahan, Iran) between April 2024 and April 2025. Adult patients presenting with UGIB symptoms were assessed using pRS, GBS, and AIMS65. Data were collected prospectively at the time of admission and during hospitalization using standardized clinical forms and patient records. Statistical analyses-including receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, area under the curve (AUC) comparisons, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values-were performed to determine each system's prognostic utility.
resultsAmong 290 enrolled patients, 30-day mortality occurred in 23.4%, with shock, tachycardia, syncope, altered mental status, and severe comorbidities significantly associated with adverse outcomes (p < 0.001). pRS exhibited the highest predictive accuracy for mortality (AUROC = 0.815) and readmission (AUROC = 0.605), outperforming GBS and AIMS65, though the difference between pRS and AIMS65 was not statistically significant (p = 0.924). At low-risk thresholds (pRS < 1, GBS < 2, AIMS65 < 1), all three systems demonstrated high sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV), with pRS showing the best balance of prognostic performance.
conclusionThe pre-endoscopic Rockall Score proved most effective for identifying high-risk UGIB patients and guiding early management. Its strong sensitivity and negative predictive value support its role in safe discharge planning and risk stratification in emergency settings. Further validation in diverse clinical contexts is recommended to enhance UGIB management strategies.
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.