ArticleCureus2024
Evaluating the Safety and Effectiveness of Regional Upper GI Bleed Services Through an Outcome-Based Analysis at a Centre in the United Kingdom.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who presented with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) among two groups of patients who were transferred from local and district hospitals for endoscopy and subsequent management versus direct admissions to the emergency department with AUGIB to the Sheffield University Hospital NHS Trust. Methods We included 259 patients who underwent upper GI endoscopy from April 2018 to March 2022, of whom 29 were transferred and 230 were direct admissions. The analysis focused on demographics, pathological findings, time to endoscopy, blood transfusions, and hospital stay. Results The transferred patients were younger (median age 58 vs. 67 years) and received early endoscopic interventions compared to direct admissions (mean time to endoscopy 0.97 vs 2.1 days/p=0.001). The means (s.d.) of hospital stay among the transferred and direct admission groups were 9.9 (9.5) and 8.3 (9.7) days, respectively (p=0.43), regardless of intervention timing or transfusion needs. The timing of the procedure did not influence the length of hospital stay from the time of endoscopy to discharge (p=0.241). Thirty-day mortality was 8 (28%) in the transferred group and 20 (9%) in the non-transferred group (p=0.006). Conclusion These findings underscore that regional bleeding services are safe and effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.