ArticleJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2026
ISG Task Force on Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB)-Comparison of Risk Scores in Nonvariceal Bleeding-A Prospective Multicenter Study.
Article in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 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
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the performance of the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) to the Total Rockall score (TRS) in predicting clinical interventions in Indian patients with acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (ANVUGIB). Materials and Methods: We prospectively studied ANVUGIB in 93 hospitals in India from October 2014 to September 2018. The etiological, clinical, and investigational details were recorded on a uniform structured proforma. The GBS and TRS were prospectively calculated for all patients. Clinical interventions were defined as blood transfusion, rebleed, and mortality with 30-day follow-up. Results: A total of 6450 patients with ANVUGIB were identified, followed up for 30 days and selected for analysis. Almost 5176 (80%) of the patients were male, and the mean age 50.7 ± 16.8 years (2-98 years). Blood transfusion was considered clinically necessary in 115 (1.7%) of the patients. Surgery and interventional radiology were required as rescue therapy in only 20 patients (0.3%) and 22 (0.3%) patients, respectively. The 30-day rebleeding and mortality occurred in 92 (1.4%) and in 184 (2.8%) patients, respectively. GBS was similar to TRS in predicting mortality (AUC 0.687 vs. 0.663) with cutoff values of 10.5 and 3.5 and predicting rebleeding with (AUC 0.637 vs. 0.630) cutoff values of 11.5 and 3.5, respectively. Outcomes were defined as 30-day mortality and rebleeding. Interventions were defined as transfusions, repeat endoscopy, surgery, or interventional radiology. Conclusions: GBS was more accurate and had more desirable clinical characteristics in predicting the need for a transfusion for hospitalized patients than TRS. However, both GBS and TRS have poor to modest predictive capability for 30-day mortality and rebleeding. They do not, then, appear to be useful as screening tools to identify people at risk for those two outcomes in a hospital setting.
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.