Comparison of risk scoring systems for patients presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: international multicentre prospective study.
Journal Club Summary
Methodology Score: 4/5
Usefulness Score: 4/5
Stanley AJ, et al.
BMJ.
2017 Jan 4;356:i6432.
This multicentre, multinational study assessed the ability
of five upper gastrointestinal bleeding scores to predict outcomes including
death, re-bleeding, need for endoscopy, transfusion, surgery or interventional
radiology, and length of hospital stay, finding that the Glasgow Blatchford
score is best at predicting the composite outcome of intervention or death,
although AIMS65 was best at predicting mortality. While applying the scores as
recommended may result in missing a small number of significant outcomes, they
are easy to apply and can help expedite disposition planning, whether
outpatient management or hospital-based intervention.
By: Dr. Daniel James
Epi lesson
Composite Outcomes
It is not unusual for studies to select a composite outcome as their
primary outcome measure. The necessity to do so is often justified by the rare
occurrence of the primary outcome of true interest (for e.g. death or
survival), and by the otherwise very large sample size required to measure it.
Caveats to using composite outcomes include the inability to attribute
associated risk or benefit of the intervention with the main (rare) outcome of
interest itself. Similarly, it is possible to erroneously conclude to the
benefit of an intervention where such benefit may only be true for “surrogate”
components of the composite outcomes and not the main outcome of interest.
By: Dr. Christian
Vaillancourt
Comments
Post a Comment