The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcomes of Small Bowel Bleeding.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shual Su, Zhifang Zhang, Yuming Wang, Hong Jin, Chao Sun, Kui Jiang, Bangmao Wang
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess the clinical Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (CRS), and AIMS65 score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay) among patients with small bowel hemorrhage.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of 3 scoring systems.
RESULTS: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs. 0.631 vs. 0.635; all P < .05). Higher cut-off scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [rebleeding (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); need for intervention (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); length of stay (CRS > 0, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 1)] in the risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS: The GBS system is reliable to be recommended for routine use in predicting rebleeding and the need for intervention for early decision making in patients with SBB. The 3 scoring systems are poorly useful in predicting length of stay.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the performance of 3 scoring systems.
RESULTS: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems demonstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs. 0.631 vs. 0.635; all P < .05). Higher cut-off scores achieved better sensitivity/specificity [rebleeding (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); need for intervention (CRS > 2, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 0); length of stay (CRS > 0, GBS > 7, AIMS65 > 1)] in the risk stratification.
CONCLUSIONS: The GBS system is reliable to be recommended for routine use in predicting rebleeding and the need for intervention for early decision making in patients with SBB. The 3 scoring systems are poorly useful in predicting length of stay.