Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcomes of Small Bowel Bleeding
32 6 Clinical Scoring Systems Predicting Small Bowel Bleeding ORIGINAL ARTICLE GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT Su et al. Clinical Scoring Systems in Predicting the Outcomes of Small Bowel Bleeding Su Shuai1, Zhang Zhifang2, Wang Yuming1, Jin Hong1, Sun Chao1, Jiang Kui1, Wang Bangmao1 1Department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Tianjin Medical University General Hospital, Tianjin, People’s Republic of China 2Department of Neurology, Tianjin Xiqing Hospital, Tianjin, People’s Republic of China Cite this article as: Su S, Zhang Z, Wang Y, et al. Clinical scoring systems in predicting the outcomes of small bowel bleeding. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2021; 32(6): 493-499. ABSTRACT Background: The aim was to assess the clinical Glasgow–Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (CRS), and AIMS65 score in predicting outcomes (rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay) among patients with small bowel hemorrhage. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients with small bowel bleeding (SBB). Rebleeding, need for intervention, and length of stay was investigated by 3 scoring systems. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to analyze the perfor- mance of 3 scoring systems. Results: Among 162 included patients, the scores of rebleeding, intervention, and length of stay ≥10 days groups were higher than no rebleeding, non-intervention, and length of stay <10 days groups, respectively (P < .05). The CRS, GBS, and AIMS65 scoring systems dem- onstrated statistically significant difference in predicting rebleeding (AUROC 0.693 vs. 0.790 vs. 0.740; all P < .01), intervention (AUROC: 0.726 vs. 0.825 vs. 0.773; all P < .01) and length of stay (AUROC 0.651 vs.
[Show full text]