Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.DESIGN: International multicentre prospective study.SETTING: Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.PARTICIPANTS: 3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Comparison of pre-endoscopy scores (admission Rockall, AIMS65, and Glasgow Blatchford) and post-endoscopy scores (full Rockall and PNED) for their ability to predict predefined clinical endpoints: a composite endpoint (transfusion, endoscopic treatment, interventional radiology, surgery, or 30 day mortality), endoscopic treatment, 30 day mortality, rebleeding, and length of hospital stay. Optimum score thresholds to identify low risk and high risk patients were determined.RESULTS: The Glasgow Blatchford score was best (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) 0.86) at predicting intervention or death compared with the full Rockall score (0.70), PNED score (0.69), admission Rockall score (0.66, and AIMS65 score (0.68) (all P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≤1 was the optimum threshold to predict survival without intervention (sensitivity 98.6%, specificity 34.6%). The Glasgow Blatchford score was better at predicting endoscopic treatment (AUROC 0.75) than the AIMS65 (0.62) and admission Rockall scores (0.61) (both P<0.001). A Glasgow Blatchford score of ≥7 was the optimum threshold to predict endoscopic treatment (sensitivity 80%, specificity 57%). The PNED (AUROC 0.77) and AIMS65 scores (0.77) were best at predicting mortality, with both superior to admission Rockall score (0.72) and Glasgow Blatchford score (0.64; P<0.001). Score thresholds of ≥4 for PNED, ≥2 for AIMS65, ≥4 for admission Rockall, and ≥5 for full Rockall were optimal at predicting death, with sensitivities of 65.8-78.6% and specificities of 65.0-65.3%. No score was helpful at predicting rebleeding or length of stay.CONCLUSIONS: The Glasgow Blatchford score has high accuracy at predicting need for hospital based intervention or death. Scores of ≤1 appear the optimum threshold for directing patients to outpatient management. AUROCs of scores for the other endpoints are less than 0.80, therefore their clinical utility for these outcomes seems to be limited.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16235737.

Risk analysis of 30-day rebleeding in acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Comparative Study of Rockall and Blatchford Risk Scoring Systems in Assessment of Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

Application of Four Scoring Systems on Evaluation of the Prognosis of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Comparative Study on Rockall and Blatchford Scoring System for Risk Assessment of Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Application of Rockall Risk Scoring System in Patients with Acute Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Which scoring system should be used for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding? Old or new?

Predictive utility of the Rockall scoring system in patients suffering from acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage

Clinical model for predicting rebleeding within 30 days after transcatheter arterial embolization for treating acute nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding

A New Scoring System to Predict Poor Clinical Outcomes in Acute Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Patients with High-Risk Stigmata

Comparison Of The Glasgow-Blatchford And Rockall Scores For Prediction Of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Outcomes In Chinese Patients

Prognostic Value of Risk Scoring Systems for Cirrhotic Patients with Variceal Bleeding.

Comparison of Four Different Risk Score Systems in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

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

Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study

Scoring Systems Used to Predict Mortality in Patients with Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding in the ED

Comparison of Risk Scores for Predicting Adverse Outcomes in Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Prealbumin and D-dimer as Prognostic Indicators for Rebleeding in Patients with Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Construction of a risk prediction model for non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding and rebleeding based on multi-dimensional indicators and its application research

ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study

Comparison of the AIMS65 Score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall Scoring Systems for the Prediction of the Risk of In-Hospital Death among Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding.