Glasgow-Blatchford bleeding score
The Glasgow Blatchford bleeding score (GBS) stratifies upper gastrointestinal bleeding enabling outpatient management for patients who are at low risk. 
Research authors: Oliver Blatchford, William R Murray, Mary Blatchford
Details Custom formula Study characteristics Files & References
★★★
Model author
Model ID
348
Version
1.3
Revision date
2018-08-09
MeSH terms
  • Hematemesis
  • Hemorrhage, Gastrointestinal
  • Model type
    Linear model (Calculation)
    Status
    public
    Rating
    Share
    Formula
    No Formula defined yet
    Condition Formula

    Additional information

    In the first study, the score was developed with data collected in an audit of admissions for acute uppergastrointestinal haemorrhage in all 19 hospitals in west Scotland. Data from 1748 patients were used to build a logistic regression model with the need for treatment as a response variable.


    In the second study, the risk scoring system was prospectively validated in a group of 197 consecutive adult patients admitted with upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage during a subsequent 3-month period in three hospitals in west Scotland

    Study Population

    Total population size: 1748

    Additional characteristics

    No additional characteristics defined

    Related files

    No related files available

    Supporting Publications

    The Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding risk score is:
    ...
    points

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    {{ model.survival.PITTitle }}

    {{ model.survival.YNETitle }}

    Result
    Note
    Notes are only visible in the result download and will not be saved by Evidencio

    The Glasgow-Blatchford Bleeding risk score is: points

    {{ resultSubheader }}

    Outcome stratification

    Result interval {{ additionalResult.min }} to {{ additionalResult.max }}

    Conditional information

    Result interpretation

    This tool classified patients as being at low risk of needing clinical intervention for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage if, at presentation, all of the following were true: blood urea was less than 6·5 mmol/L, haemoglobin more than 130 g/L for men or 120 g/L for women, systolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg or higher, and pulse less than 100 beats per min

    {{ file.classification }}

    Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement. See our full disclaimer.

    Comments
    Rating
    Comment
    Please enter a comment of rating
    Comments are visible to anyone

    Model feedback

    No feedback yet 1 Comment {{ model.comments.length }} Comments
    Not rated | On {{ comment.created_at }} {{ comment.user.username }} a no longer registered author wrote:
    {{ comment.content }}
    logo

    Please sign in to enable Evidencio print features

    In order to use the Evidencio print features, you need to be logged in.
    If you don't have an Evidencio Community Account you can create your free personal account at:

    https://www.evidencio.com/registration

    Printed results - Examples {{ new Date().toLocaleString() }}


    Evidencio Community Account Benefits


    With an Evidencio Community account you can:

    • Create and publish your own prediction models.
    • Share your prediction models with your colleagues, research group, organization or the world.
    • Review and provide feedback on models that have been shared with you.
    • Validate your models and validate models from other users.
    • Find models based on Title, Keyword, Author, Institute, or MeSH classification.
    • Use and save prediction models and their data.
    • Use patient specific protocols and guidelines based on sequential models and decision trees.
    • Stay up-to-date with new models in your field as they are published.
    • Create your own lists of favorite models and topics.
    A personal Evidencio account is free, with no strings attached! Join us and help create clarity, transparency, and efficiency in the creation, validation, and use of medical prediction models.

    Disclaimer: Calculations alone should never dictate patient care, and are no substitute for professional judgement.