Letter: scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

Letter: scoring systems for upper gastrointestinal bleeding – authors’ reply

“…SIRS, We appreciate the interest by Dr Tellez-Avila in our study 1,2 and we agree that the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS) is a very useful tool in risk stratifying patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). Previous studies have used GBS thresholds to predict the need for clinical intervention.…”

Comparison of three scoring systems in predicting clinical outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective observational study

“…A larger AUROC indicated a higher risk of adverse outcomes and a cut-off value was selected to maximize the sensitivity and specificity. 21,22,24 Two-sided P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.…”

“…Patients were primarily categorized into low‐risk (GBS score ≤2; mGBS score ≤2; AIM65 score ≤1) and high‐risk (GBS score >2; mGBS score >2; AIM65 score >1) groups, respectively …”

“…The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was conducted and the area under the ROC curve (AUROC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to compare the performances of GBS, mGBS and AIMS65 scores in predicting the occurrence of total or single adverse events. A larger AUROC indicated a higher risk of adverse outcomes and a cut‐off value was selected to maximize the sensitivity and specificity . Two‐sided P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.…”

“…14 Patients were primarily categorized into low-risk (GBS score ≤2; mGBS score ≤2; AIM65 score ≤1) and highrisk (GBS score >2; mGBS score >2; AIM65 score >1) groups, respectively. [21][22][23][24] Treatment All clinical management decisions were made according to the discretion of the physicians. The gastroenterologist decided whether and when esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was to be performed.…”