Literature DB >> 21641145

External validation of the Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score and the Rockall Score in the US setting.

Subhash Chandra1, Erik P Hess, Dipti Agarwal, David M Nestler, Victor M Montori, Louis M Wong Kee Song, George A Wells, Ian G Stiell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding Score (GBS) and Rockall Score (RS) are clinical decision rules that risk stratify emergency department (ED) patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We evaluated GBS and RS to determine the extent to which either score identifies patients with UGIB who could be safely discharged from the ED.
METHODS: We reviewed and extracted data from the electronic medical records of consecutive adult patients who presented with signs or symptoms of UGIB (hematemesis and/or melena) to an academic ED from April 1, 2004, to April 1, 2009. The primary outcome was need for intervention (blood transfusion and/or endoscopic/surgical intervention) or death within 30 days.
RESULTS: We identified 171 patients with the following characteristics: mean age of 69.9 years (SD, 17.0 years ), 52% women, 20% with a history of liver disease, and 22% with history of gastrointestinal bleeding. Ninety (52.6%, 95% confidence interval, 44.9-60.3) patients had the primary outcome. GBS outperformed pre-endoscopy RS [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)=0.79 vs 0.62; P=.0001; absolute difference, 0.17]. The prognostic accuracy of GBS and post-endoscopy RS was similarly high (AUC, 0.79 vs 0.72; P=.26; absolute difference, 0.07). The specificity of GBS and RS was suboptimal at all potential decision thresholds.
CONCLUSIONS: Although GBS outperformed pre-endoscopy RS, the prognostic accuracy of GBS and post-endoscopy RS was similarly high. The specificity of GBS and RS was insufficient to recommend use of either score in clinical practice.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 21641145     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2011.03.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  16 in total

Review 1.  Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?

Authors:  Sara Monteiro; Tiago Cúrdia Gonçalves; Joana Magalhães; José Cotter
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2016-02-15

Review 2.  Diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Marc Bardou; Dalila Benhaberou-Brun; Isabelle Le Ray; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2012-01-10       Impact factor: 46.802

3.  Comparison of computed tomography findings with clinical risks factors for endoscopic therapy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding cases.

Authors:  Fumitake Jono; Hiroshi Iida; Koji Fujita; Megumi Kaai; Kenji Kanoshima; Kanji Ohkuma; Takashi Nonaka; Tomonori Ida; Akihiko Kusakabe; Atsushi Nakamura; Shigeru Koyama; Atsushi Nakajima; Masahiko Inamori
Journal:  J Clin Biochem Nutr       Date:  2019-06-28       Impact factor: 3.114

4.  External validation of scoring systems in risk stratification of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Anna Cherian Anchu; Subair Mohsina; Sathasivam Sureshkumar; T Mahalakshmy; Vikram Kate
Journal:  Indian J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-04-10

5.  The cost-effectiveness analysis of video capsule endoscopy compared to other strategies to manage acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage in the ED.

Authors:  Andrew C Meltzer; Michael J Ward; Ian M Gralnek; Jesse M Pines
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.469

6.  Pillcam ESO(®) is more accurate than clinical scoring systems in risk stratifying emergency room patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Ellen Gutkin; Albert Shalomov; Syed A Hussain; Sang H Kim; Rafael Cortes; Sondra Gray; Hani Judeh; Simcha Pollack; Moshe Rubin
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 4.409

7.  Validity of modified early warning, Glasgow Blatchford, and pre-endoscopic Rockall scores in predicting prognosis of patients presenting to emergency department with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Authors:  Seyran Bozkurt; Ataman Köse; Engin Deniz Arslan; Semra Erdoğan; Enver Üçbilek; İbrahim Çevik; Cüneyt Ayrık; Orhan Sezgin
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 2.953

8.  [Comparison of two prognostic scores in non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a hospital in Antananarivo].

Authors:  Aurélia Rakotondrainibe; Thierry Pierre Randrianambinina; Harifetra Mamy Richard Randriamizao; Fanjandrainy Rasoaherinomenjanahary; Mialimanana Joël Randriamiarana; Luc Hervé Samison
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2013-11-29

9.  The Performance of a Modified Glasgow Blatchford Score in Predicting Clinical Interventions in Patients with Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: A Vietnamese Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

Authors:  Duc Trong Quach; Ngoi Huu Dao; Minh Cao Dinh; Chung Huu Nguyen; Linh Xuan Ho; Nha-Doan Thi Nguyen; Quang Dinh Le; Cong Minh Hong Vo; Sang Kim Le; Toru Hiyama
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 4.519

10.  Comparison of AIMS65 Score and Other Scoring Systems for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Koreans with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.

Authors:  Sung Min Park; Seok Cheon Yeum; Byung-Wook Kim; Joon Sung Kim; Ji Hee Kim; Eun Hui Sim; Jeong-Seon Ji; Hwang Choi
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2016-07-15       Impact factor: 4.519

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.