| Title |
A novel scoring system for prediction of esophageal varices in critically ill patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceg.s144700 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Amr Shaaban Hanafy, Rehab Badawi, Mohammad Abdelkhalik Atia Basha, Amal Selim, Mohamed Yousef, Sally Elnawasany, Loai Mansour, Reham Abdelkader Elkhouly, Nehad Hawash, Sherief Abd-Elsalam |
| Abstract |
Patients with advanced systemic illness or critically ill patients may present with upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) bleeding which may need endoscopic intervention; however, this may expose them to unnecessary endoscopy. The aim was to validate a novel scoring system for risk stratification for urgency of GIT endoscopy in critically ill patients. This is an observational study conducted from January 2013 to January 2016 to analyze 300 patients with critical medical conditions and presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Meticulous clinical, laboratory, and sonographic evaluations were performed to calculate Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) and variceal metric score for risk stratification and prediction of the presence of esophageal varices (OV). Finally, this score was applied on a validation group (n=100). The use of GBS and variceal metric scores in critically ill patients revealed that patients who showed a low risk score value for OV (0-4 points) and GBS <2 can be treated conservatively and discharged safely without urgent endoscopy. In patients with a low risk for varices but GBS >2, none of them had OV on endoscopy. In patients with intermediate risk score value for OV (5-8 points) and with GBS >2, 33.33% of them had varices on endoscopy. In patients with high risk score value for varices (9-13) and GBS >2, endoscopy revealed varices in 94.4% of them. Finally, in patients with very high risk score for varices (14-17), endoscopy revealed varices in 100% of them. GBS and variceal metric score were highly efficacious in identifying critically ill patients who will benefit from therapeutic endoscopic intervention. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 19% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,459,801
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#254
of 307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#373,057
of 437,944 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 437,944 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.