ArticlePloS one2026
Risk factors and prognosis analysis of gastrointestinal bleeding combined with hemorrhagic shock in patients in intensive care unit:A retrospective study.
Article in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThrough retrospective analysis of clinical data on gastrointestinal bleeding complicated with hemorrhagic shock (GIB-HS) in patients in our intensive care unit（ICU）, we aim to explore relevant risk factors and prognosis, and provide guidance for clinical prevention and treatment of such cases.
methodsA total of 93 cases of gastrointestinal bleeding from October 2023 to January 2025 in the Intensive Care Medicine Department of our hospital were collected. Based on the presence or absence of hemorrhagic shock, they were divided into a hemorrhagic shock group (observation group, n = 42 cases) and a control group (control group, n = 51 cases). The differences in clinical data between the two groups were analyzed, and logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding complicated with hemorrhagic shock. The sensitivity and specificity of predicting hemorrhagic shock were analyzed using the receiver operating characteristic（ROC）curve, and the prognosis of the two groups was compared.
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in the scores of type 2 diabetes, urea nitrogen, red blood cell number, hemoglobin, hematocrit and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II(APACHEII) score, P ＜ 0.05. Binary logistic regression analysis was conducted with factors with P < 0.1 as independent variables. The results showed that there was a statistically significant difference in urea nitrogen and fibrinogen, which were risk factors for ICU GIB-HS The ROC curve showed that urea nitrogen had the highest specificity in predicting ICU patients with GIB-HS, while fibrinogen had the highest sensitivity in predicting hemorrhagic shock. Compared with the prognosis of the two groups, the mortality rate of the group with hemorrhagic shock was higher than that of the group without hemorrhagic shock.
conclusionsAn exploratory correlation analysis revealed that both urea nitrogen and fibrinogen are factors associated with the prediction of GIB-HS in ICU patients, while APACHEII score, respiratory failure, and fibrinogen are independent factors affecting the prognosis of ICU patients with GIB-HS. Clinicians need to timely identify these indicators and optimize treatment plans to improve prognosis. 1. Patients with advanced malignant tumors, 2. Age of onset<18 years, 3. Pregnant or lactating women, 4. Incomplete case or follow-up data.
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.