ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Comparative predictive value of AIMS65, Pre-endoscopic Rockall and Glasgow-Blatchford Scoring Systems in Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
Objective: To compare the predictive ability of the AIMS65, pre-endoscopic Rockall score (Pre-RS), and Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) for clinical outcomes in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). Methodology: This retrospective, single-center, observational study analyzed the clinical records of 314 patients with NVUGIB who presented to Jiashan County First People's Hospital between October 2023 and June 2025. The AIMS65 score, Pre-RS, and GBS were retrospectively calculated for these patients. The predictive ability of the scores for in-hospital mortality, transfusion requirement, endoscopic intervention, and rebleeding was evaluated by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: Of 314 patients included in the study, 9.6% died during hospitalization, 40.1% required blood transfusion, 76.4% underwent endoscopic intervention, and 6.1% experienced rebleeding. The AIMS65, Pre-RS, and GBS all demonstrated good performance in predicting the clinical endpoints. The AIMS65 showed significantly greater predictive ability for in-hospital mortality than Pre-RS and GBS. The GBS had a markedly superior ability to predict the need for blood transfusion compared with the other scores, and the Pre-RS exhibited a significantly better predictive performance for endoscopic intervention. No significant differences were observed among the three scores in terms of their predictive efficacy for rebleeding. Conclusions: The AIMS65, Pre-RS, and GBS demonstrated good predictive value for clinical endpoints in patients with NVUGIB. The AIMS65 was more effective in predicting in-hospital mortality, GBS showed the best performance for predicting transfusion requirements, and Pre-RS performed best for predicting endoscopic intervention. No significant difference was observed among the three scores in predicting rebleeding.
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.