上消化道出血患者风险分层工具的优势和局限性:叙述性综述。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Ali A Alali, Antoine Boustany, Myriam Martel, Alan N Barkun
{"title":"上消化道出血患者风险分层工具的优势和局限性:叙述性综述。","authors":"Ali A Alali,&nbsp;Antoine Boustany,&nbsp;Myriam Martel,&nbsp;Alan N Barkun","doi":"10.1080/17474124.2023.2242252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.</p><p><strong>Area covered: </strong>A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12257,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":"17 8","pages":"795-803"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review.\",\"authors\":\"Ali A Alali,&nbsp;Antoine Boustany,&nbsp;Myriam Martel,&nbsp;Alan N Barkun\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17474124.2023.2242252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.</p><p><strong>Area covered: </strong>A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Expert opinion: </strong>The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12257,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology\",\"volume\":\"17 8\",\"pages\":\"795-803\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2023.2242252\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/31 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2023.2242252","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/31 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引言:尽管上消化道出血(UGIB)患者的治疗取得了进展,但相关的发病率和死亡率仍然很高。然而,大多数患者将在不需要医院干预的情况下获得良好的结果。风险评估分数可能有助于这种早期风险分层。这些量表可以优化低风险患者的识别,从而更好地利用资源,包括减少对早期内窥镜检查的需求和减少住院人数。本文的目的是对UGIB中的风险评估分数进行最新的详细审查。涵盖领域:一项文献综述确定了UGIB过去和目前可用的内镜前风险评估评分,重点是低风险预测。讨论了不同量表的优势和劣势,以及它们对临床决策的影响。专家意见:目前的证据支持使用Glasgow Blatchford评分,因为它是在试图识别可以在门诊安全管理的低风险患者时最准确的工具。目前,似乎没有一种风险评估工具足够准确,可以自信地将患者归类为高风险患者。未来的研究应该使用更标准化的方法,同时支持介入试验设计,以更好地描述使用此类风险分层方案的临床影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Strengths and limitations of risk stratification tools for patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a narrative review.

Introduction: Despite advances in the management of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), associated morbidity and mortality remain significant. Most patients, however, will experience favorable outcomes without a need for hospital-based interventions. Risk assessment scores may assist in such early risk-stratification. These scales may optimize identification of low-risk patients, resulting in better resource utilization, including a reduced need for early endoscopy and fewer hospital admissions. The aim of this article is to provide an updated detailed review of risk assessment scores in UGIB.

Area covered: A literature review identified past and currently available pre-endoscopic risk assessment scores for UGIB, with a focus on low-risk prediction. Strengths and weaknesses of the different scales are discussed as well as their impact on clinical decision-making.

Expert opinion: The current evidence supports using the Glasgow Blatchford Score as it is the most accurate tool available when attempting to identify low-risk patients who can be safely managed on an outpatient basis. Currently, no risk assessment tool appears accurate enough in confidently classifying patients as high risk. Future research should utilize more standardized methodologies, while favoring interventional trial designs to better characterize the clinical impact attributable to the use of such risk stratification schemes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
86
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The enormous health and economic burden of gastrointestinal disease worldwide warrants a sharp focus on the etiology, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, treatment and development of new therapies. By the end of the last century we had seen enormous advances, both in technologies to visualize disease and in curative therapies in areas such as gastric ulcer, with the advent first of the H2-antagonists and then the proton pump inhibitors - clear examples of how advances in medicine can massively benefit the patient. Nevertheless, specialists face ongoing challenges from a wide array of diseases of diverse etiology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信