ArticleEndoscopy2026
External validation and optimization of the Limoges score to improve the delayed bleeding risk prediction after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: the Delayed Bleeding ESD (DEBE) score.
Article in Endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Limoges Bleeding Score estimates an individual's risk of clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to validate and update this model in a Western setting.
methodsProcedural data and complications were prospectively recorded in French-Belgian (FECCO) and Spanish cohorts. The Limoges score was externally validated. A revised Western score was derived. Score performance was determined by discrimination and calibration. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping and leave-one-out cross-validation. The score's performance was independently assessed in both cohorts.
results4767 ESDs were included: 33.7 % rectal and 37.7 % proximal; median lesion size 50 mm; mean patient age 68.1 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score I-II 72.9 %; anticoagulants 10.9 %, and antiplatelets 17.0 %. CSDB prevalence was 6.8 %. The performance of the Limoges score was modest. A new score called DEBE (Delayed Bleeding ESD) was developed: age ≥ 75 years (2 points), lesion size ≥ 50 mm (5 points), ASA classification III-IV (4 points), location in the rectum (2 points) or proximal colon (1 point), anticoagulants (7 points) and antiplatelets (3 points). The DEBE score ranged from 0 to 23 points and categorized the patients into two groups (low risk 3.9 %; medium-high risk 14.2 %). The score showed acceptable discrimination (area under the curve 0.712), adequate calibration, and consistent performance after internal validation.
conclusionsThe DEBE score, based on seven preprocedural variables, allowed a personalized assessment of bleeding risk. It determined the individual CSDB risk, identified patients who would benefit from prophylactic treatment, and defined those who require monitoring after ESD.
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.