上消化道出血风险评分:何人、何时、为何?

S. Monteiro, T. Gonçalves, J. Magalhães, J. Cotter
{"title":"上消化道出血风险评分:何人、何时、为何?","authors":"S. Monteiro, T. Gonçalves, J. Magalhães, J. Cotter","doi":"10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the complications, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.","PeriodicalId":68755,"journal":{"name":"世界胃肠病理生理学杂志(电子版)(英文版)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86","citationCount":"60","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?\",\"authors\":\"S. Monteiro, T. Gonçalves, J. Magalhães, J. Cotter\",\"doi\":\"10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the complications, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.\",\"PeriodicalId\":68755,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"世界胃肠病理生理学杂志(电子版)(英文版)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86\",\"citationCount\":\"60\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"世界胃肠病理生理学杂志(电子版)(英文版)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"世界胃肠病理生理学杂志(电子版)(英文版)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4291/wjgp.v7.i1.86","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 60

摘要

上消化道出血(UGIB)仍然是住院的一个重要原因。为了根据并发症(如再出血或死亡)的风险对患者进行分层,并预测临床干预的需要,已经提出了几种风险评分,并被国际指南一致推荐使用。在早期评估UGIB患者时使用风险评分系统可能有助于区分高风险患者(可能需要临床干预和住院治疗)和低风险患者(发生并发症的可能性较低),后者可考虑作为门诊患者进行管理。虽然有几个分数已经发表并被证实可以预测不同的结果,但最常被引用的是罗克尔分数和格拉斯哥布拉奇福德分数(GBS)。结合临床和内镜变量的Rockall评分已被证实可用于预测死亡率,而基于临床和实验室参数的GBS已被研究用于预测临床干预的需要。尽管先前报道了这些优势,但它们在临床决策中的应用仍然有限。这篇综述描述了在UGIB环境中使用的不同风险评分,突出了最重要的研究,解释了为什么以及何时使用它们可能是有帮助的,反思了尚未解决的问题,并指导了具有实际影响的未来研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk scores: Who, when and why?
Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of hospital admission. In order to stratify patients according to the risk of the complications, such as rebleeding or death, and to predict the need of clinical intervention, several risk scores have been proposed and their use consistently recommended by international guidelines. The use of risk scoring systems in early assessment of patients suffering from UGIB may be useful to distinguish high-risks patients, who may need clinical intervention and hospitalization, from low risk patients with a lower chance of developing complications, in which management as outpatients can be considered. Although several scores have been published and validated for predicting different outcomes, the most frequently cited ones are the Rockall score and the Glasgow Blatchford score (GBS). While Rockall score, which incorporates clinical and endoscopic variables, has been validated to predict mortality, the GBS, which is based on clinical and laboratorial parameters, has been studied to predict the need of clinical intervention. Despite the advantages previously reported, their use in clinical decisions is still limited. This review describes the different risk scores used in the UGIB setting, highlights the most important research, explains why and when their use may be helpful, reflects on the problems that remain unresolved and guides future research with practical impact.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
336
×
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