ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2026
Comparative performance of pre-interventional prognostic scores in predicting 30-day mortality and ICU admission in gastrointestinal bleeding.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comprehensive intra-cohort comparisons of pre-interventional prognostic scores for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) are lacking. We compared 12 pre-interventional scores [Glasgow-Blatchford Score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS), AIMS65, Pre-Rockall, ABC, Harbinger, T-Score, Canuka, SHA2PE, Oakland, NOBLADS, and Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS)] for predicting 30-day mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission in emergency department patients with upper GIB (UGIB) and lower GIB (LGIB). This retrospective, single-center cohort study evaluated 2020 patients with GIB between January 2014 and March 2025, categorized into UGIB (n = 1524) and LGIB (n = 496) groups. Primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and ICU admission. Scores were evaluated in two ways: an indication-restricted analysis, in which each score was applied only to the bleeding location for which it was developed, and a comprehensive analysis, in which all 12 scores were applied to both subgroups. Discriminative performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC); the highest-performing scores per outcome were compared using DeLong's method. For 30-day mortality, AIMS65 showed the highest discrimination in UGIB (AUC = 0.850) and NOBLADS in LGIB (0.809) in the indication-restricted analysis. In the comprehensive analysis, AIMS65 again showed the highest discrimination (AUC = 0.850) in UGIB, outperforming NOBLADS (AUC = 0.812; p = 0.035), ABC (AUC = 0.801; p = 0.023), and Pre-Rockall (AUC = 0.798; p = 0.033), but not Canuka (AUC = 0.821; p = 0.124). For LGIB, GBS achieved the highest AUC (0.851), followed by MEWS (0.841) and mGBS (0.832), with no significant pairwise differences among the top five scores. For ICU admission, the highest-performing scores demonstrated moderate discrimination in the comprehensive analysis (AUC range, 0.755-0.788 in UGIB; 0.746-0.768 in LGIB). AIMS65 showed the highest discrimination for 30-day mortality in UGIB in both analyses, whereas no score demonstrated clear superiority in LGIB. NOBLADS ranked highest within its original indication in LGIB and retained strong discrimination when applied to UGIB, supporting its potential role as a location-independent mortality predictor. No score reliably predicted ICU admission, indicating a persistent gap in pre-interventional risk stratification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42696100What 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.