Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 Nov 14;14(1):27940.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-79643-1.

Comparison and validation of several scoring systems for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective study

Kyung Ryun In  1 , Young Eun Oh  1 , Hee Seok Moon  2 , Sukyoung Jung  3   4 , Sun Hyung Kang  1 , Jae Kyu Sung  1 , Hyun Yong Jeong  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison and validation of several scoring systems for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective study

Kyung Ryun In et al. Sci Rep. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Various scoring systems have been developed to predict outcomes in patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (NVUGIB). However, their accuracy remains unclear. This study aimed to compare and validate the predictive performance of several established scoring systems in patients with NVUGIB: Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS) and the age, blood tests, and comorbidities (ABC), mental status-anesthesiologist score-pulse-albumin-systolic blood pressure-hemoglobin (MAP(ASH)), Japanese, and Charlson comorbidity index-in-hospital onset-albumin-mental status-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status-steroids (CHAMPS) scores. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,241 patients who presented to the emergency department with NVUGIB and subsequently required hospitalization. Each scoring system was evaluated for its ability to predict in-hospital mortality, rebleeding, and the need for radiological or surgical intervention. The ABC score showed the highest accuracy in predicting in-hospital mortality. The MAP(ASH) score was the most effective predictor of rebleeding and the need for interventions. Different scoring systems have been optimized for various clinical outcomes. The ABC score was the best for predicting mortality, whereas the MAP(ASH) score excelled in identifying rebleeding risks and intervention needs. The selection of an appropriate scoring tool based on specific clinical scenarios can improve patient management and resource allocation in NVUGIB.

Keywords: Mortality; Scoring systems; Upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval This retrospective chart review study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Chungnam National University Hospital (IRB number: CNUH 2024-05-017). All procedures performed in studies involving participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the Association, National Research Council, and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration, as amended or equivalent thereto. Consent to participate The requirement for written informed consent was waived due to the retrospective study design.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of this study. NVUGIB, non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of scoring systems for predicting outcomes. MAP, mental status-anesthesiologist score-pulse; ABC, age-blood tests-comorbidity; GBS, Glasgow-Blatchford score; CHAMPS, Charlson comorbidity index-in-hospital onset-albumin-mental status-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status-Steroids.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Laine, L. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to a peptic ulcer. N Engl. J. Med.375, 1198 (2016). - PubMed
    1. Lee, P. L. et al. Tranexamic acid for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Am. J. Emerg. Med.45, 269–279 (2021). - PubMed
    1. Tielleman, T., Bujanda, D. & Cryer, B. Epidemiology and risk factors for upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointest. Endosc Clin. N Am.25, 415–428 (2015). - PubMed
    1. Gralnek, I. M. et al. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2021. Endoscopy. 53, 300–332 (2021). - PubMed
    1. Sung, J. J. et al. Asia-Pacific working group consensus on non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: an update 2018. Gut. 67, 1757–1768 (2018). - PMC - PubMed