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

Cheng, Daniel; Lu, Yidan; Teller, Thomas; Sekhon, Harpreet; Wu, Bechien U.

doi:10.1111/apt.12167

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Methods1

Definitions and The Scoring Systems1

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2016

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Definitions and The Scoring Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Zhong

Chen

et al. 2016

J of Digest Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%