The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage.
Open accessAbstract
The aim of this study was to establish the relative importance of risk factors for mortality after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and to formulate a simple numerical scoring system that categorizes patients by risk. A prospective, unselected, multicentre, population based study was undertaken using standardised questionnaires in two phases one year apart. A total of 4185 cases of acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage over the age of 16 identified over a four month period in 1993 and 1625 cases identified subsequently over a three month period in 1994 were included in the study. It was found that age, shock, comorbidity, diagnosis, major stigmata of recent haemorrhage, and rebleeding are all independent predictors of mortality when assessed using multiple logistic regression. A numerical score using these parameters has been developed that closely follows the predictions generated by logistical regression equations. Haemoglobin, sex, presentation (other than shock), and drug therapy (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and anticoagulants) are not represented in the final model. When tested for general applicability in a second population, the scoring system was found to reproducibly predict mortality in each risk category. In conclusion, a simple numerical score can be used to categorize patients presenting with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage by risk of death. This score can be used to determine case mix when comparing outcomes in audit and research and to calculate risk standardised mortality. In addition, this risk score can identify 15% of all cases with acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage at the time of presentation and 26% of cases after endoscopy who are at low risk of rebleeding and negligible risk of death and who might therefore be considered for early discharge or outpatient treatment with consequent resource savings.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Barkun, A. N., Bardou, M., Kuipers, E. J., Sung, J., Hunt, R. H., Martel, M., Sinclair, P., & for the International Consensus Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding Conference Group* (2010) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-2-201001190-00009 · Cited by 1,163
Non-variceal upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: guidelines
(2002) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.51.suppl_4.iv1 · Cited by 261
Das, A., Ben-Menachem, T., Cooper, G. S., Chak, A., Sivak, M. V., Gonet, J. A., & Wong, R. C. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14568-0 · Cited by 208
Meta‐analysis: proton‐pump inhibition in high‐risk patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding
Bardou, M., Toubouti, Y., Benhaberou‐Brun, D., Rahme, E., & Barkun, A. N. (2005) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02391.x · Cited by 132
Development and Validation of a Scoring System to Identify Patients With Microscopic Colitis
Kane, J. S., Rotimi, O., Everett, S. M., Samji, S., Michelotti, F., & Ford, A. C. (2015) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.12.035 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Rockall, T. A., Logan, R. F., Devlin, H. B., & Northfield, T. C.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 316-321
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2114614290
- Cited by
- 1,478
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.38.3.316
- The paper
- Rockall, T. A., Logan, R. F., Devlin, H. B., & Northfield, T. C. (1996). Risk assessment after acute upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.38.3.316
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.