↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford score and full Rockall score systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of Glasgow-Blatchford score and full Rockall score systems to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, October 2016
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s114860
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjan Mokhtare, Vida Bozorgi, Shahram Agah, Mehdi Nikkhah, Amirhossein Faghihi, Amirhossein Boghratian, Neda Shalbaf, Abbas Khanlari, Hamidreza Seifmanesh

Abstract

Various risk scoring systems have been recently developed to predict clinical outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The two commonly used scoring systems include full Rockall score (RS) and the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS). Bleeding scores were assessed in terms of prediction of clinical outcomes in patients with UGIB. Two hundred patients (age >18 years) with obvious symptoms of UGIB in the emergency department of Rasoul Akram Hospital were enrolled. Full RS and GBS were calculated. We followed the patients for records of rebleeding and 1-month mortality. A receiver operating characteristic curve by using areas under the curve (AUCs) was used to statistically identify the best cutoff point. Eighteen patients were excluded from the study due to failure to follow-up. Rebleeding and mortality rate were 9.34% (n=17) and 11.53% (n=21), respectively. Regarding 1-month mortality, full RS was better than GBS (AUC, 0.648 versus 0.582; P=0.021). GBS was more accurate in terms of detecting transfusion need (AUC, 0.757 versus 0.528; P=0.001), rebleeding rate (AUC, 0.722 versus 0.520; P=0.002), intensive care unit admission rate (AUC, 0.648 versus 0.582; P=0.021), and endoscopic intervention rate (AUC, 0.771 versus 0.650; P<0.001). We found the full RS system is better for 1-month mortality prediction while GBS system is better for prediction of other outcomes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Master 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Unknown 13 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 May 2020.
All research outputs
#7,538,708
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#106
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,905
of 334,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.