Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 10, 2026
Flexible Colonoscopy in Mice to Evaluate the Severity of Colitis and Colorectal Tumors Using a Validated Endoscopic Scoring System
Published on: October 16, 2013
Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal
Min Zhong1, Wan Jun Chen1, Xiao Ye Lu1
1Department of Emergency Medicine, Renjii Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Objective:
To compare the performances of the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), modified GBS (mGBS) and AIMS65 in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB).
Methods:
This study enrolled 320 consecutive patients with AUGIB. Patients at high and low risks of developing adverse clinical outcomes (rebleeding, the need of clinical intervention and death) were categorized according to the GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scoring systems. The outcome of the patients were the occurrences of adverse clinical outcomes. The areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of three scoring systems were compared.
Results:
Irrespective of the systems used, the high-risk groups showed higher rates of rebleeding, intervention and death compared with the low-risk groups (P < 0.05). For the prediction of rebleeding, AIMS65 (AUROC 0.735, 95% CI 0.667-0.802) performed significantly better than GBS (AUROC 0.672, 95% CI 0.597-0.747; P < 0.01) and mGBS (AUROC 0.677, 95% CI 0.602-0.753; P < 0.01). For the prediction of interventions, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.769, 95% CI 0.668-0.870; mGBS: AUROC 0.745, 95% CI 0.643-0.847; AIMS65: AUROC 0.746, 95% CI 0.640-0.851). For the prediction of in-hospital mortality, there was no significant difference among the three systems (GBS: AUROC 0.796, 95% CI 0.694-0.898; mGBS: AUROC 0.803, 95% CI 0.703-0.904; AIMS65: AUROC 0.786, 95% CI 0.670-0.903).
Conclusions:
The three scoring systems are reliable and accurate in predicting the rates of rebleeding, surgery and mortality in AUGIB. However, AIMS65 outperforms GBS and mGBS in predicting rebleeding.
Related Concept Videos
01:28Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
01:28Peptic Ulcer Disease III: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Few clinical manifestations differentiate gastric ulcers from duodenal ulcers. Distinctions in the location, timing, and pain relief are crucial for healthcare providers in differentiating between gastric and duodenal ulcers during clinical assessments.
01:23Gastritis III: Clinical Manifestations and Management
Clinical manifestations of acute gastritis
The patient with acute gastritis may have a rapid onset of symptoms, such as epigastric pain or discomfort, dyspepsia, anorexia, hiccups, or nausea and vomiting, which can last from a few hours to a few days. Erosive or hemorrhagic gastritis may cause bleeding, which may manifest as blood in vomit or as...
01:17Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems...