ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2026
The use of prognostic scales in upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In order to select high-risk patients, many prognostic scales have been invented. Among them, the Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 scales were considered the most useful. Material and methods: Patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract bleeding, treated between 2017 and 2018, were retrospectively enrolled in the study. Every patient had a Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS65 score calculated retrospectively. Data on hospitalization - blood transfusions, length of hospital stay, rebleeding, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality - were included in the database. Results: Univariate logistic regression revealed that only the AIMS65 scale was a prognostic factor for in-hospital mortality (OR = 11.028; 95% CI: 2.271-53.563, Conclusions: Based on our results, we recommend using the AIMS65 scoring system. It is simple and requires few parameters to be counted. Also, it proved to be the most efficient in predicting in-hospital mortality.
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.