title: Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the predictive accuracy and clinical utility of five risk scoring systems in the assessment of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
  
  
  METHODS
  International multicentre prospective study.
  
  
  METHODS
  Six large hospitals in Europe, North America, Asia, and Oceania.
  
  
  METHODS
  3012 consecutive patients presenting over 12 months with upper gastrointestinal bleeding.
  
  
  METHODS
  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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G4 OSF, UK adrian.stanley@ggc.scot.nhs.uk.
authors.forename: Adrian J
authors.initials: AJ
authors.lastname: Stanley
authors.affiliation: Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
authors.forename: Loren
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Laine
authors.affiliation: Gastrointestinal Unit, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Cornwall, UK.
authors.forename: Harry R
authors.initials: HR
authors.lastname: Dalton
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
authors.forename: Jing H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Ngu
authors.affiliation: Department of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.|Gastroenterology Unit, Southern District Health Board, Dunedin Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schultz
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
authors.forename: Roseta
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Abazi
authors.affiliation: Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, and VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA.
authors.forename: Liam
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Zakko
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G4 OSF, UK.
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Thornton
authors.affiliation: Gastrointestinal Unit, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Cornwall, UK.
authors.forename: Kelly
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Wilkinson
authors.affiliation: Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
authors.forename: Cristopher J L
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Khor
authors.affiliation: Gastrointestinal Unit, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Cornwall, UK.
authors.forename: Iain A
authors.initials: IA
authors.lastname: Murray
authors.affiliation: Department of Medical Gastroenterology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
authors.forename: Stig B
authors.initials: SB
authors.lastname: Laursen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D019540:Area Under Curve; D005260:Female; D006471:Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage / Q000209:etiology* / Q000401:mortality / Q000628:therapy; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011379:Prognosis; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012372:ROC Curve; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D041742:Upper Gastrointestinal Tract; D055815:Young Adult