Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460457›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2025

Comparison of risk assessment scores of upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Proposal for a simplified score.

Adrija Ganguly, Tryambak Samanta, Pusphak Das, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Saubhik Ghosh, Sanjay Kumar Mandal, Kalidas Biswas

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Adrija GangulyDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.
Tryambak SamantaDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India. drts.india@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1691-4432
Pusphak DasDepartment of Community Medicine, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.
Manoj Kumar GuptaDepartment of Tropical Medicine, School of Tropical Medicine, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.
Saubhik GhoshDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.
Sanjay Kumar MandalDepartment of General Medicine, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.
Kalidas BiswasDepartment of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata 700 073, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesRisk stratification of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) is crucial for streamlining healthcare in resource-limited settings, thereby minimizing both morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to validate clinical outcomes of the pre-existing risk assessment scores as full Rockall score (FRS), Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score (GBS), Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva (PNED) and AIMS65 (an acronym of albumin, International Normalized Ratio [INR], mental status, systolic blood pressure, age > 65 years) scores and a proposed acronymic A2BC score incorporating four variables as age, serum albumin, mean blood pressure and serum creatinine in our setting.

methodsProspective study over a three-year period of patients presenting with UGIB at the Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Medical College, Kolkata.

resultsThe mean age of the 535 subject population was 52.84 ± 17.13 years, with male predominance (n = 284, 53.08%) and a majority being non-variceal bleeders (n = 336, 62.8%). The median (IQR) of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores with composite risk defined as the presence of one or more of the following: need for blood transfusion during hospitalization, therapeutic intervention in non-malignant NVUGIB, rebleeding and death both within 42 days were 4 (3-6), 14 (12-16), 6 (2-10), 1 (0-2) and 1 (0-2) in comparison to those without the risk 2 (2-3), 10 (8-11), 3 (0-4), 0 (0-0) and 0 (0-0), respectively, all of which were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The discriminant cut-offs of FRS, GBS, PNED, AIMS65 and A2BC scores to predict composite risk of the subjects were ≥ 2, ≥ 7, ≥ 1, ≥ 1 and ≥ 1, respectively, with accuracies of 64.85%, 68.97%, 68.59%, 73.83%, and 77.57% respectively.

conclusionOur study validates the commonly used prognostic scores in our context and encourages further studies on the newly formulated A2BC score.

Indexed as

Blood transfusionMortalityRebleedingRisk assessment scoresTherapeutic interventionUpper gastrointestinal bleed

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.