GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

116 calculators match

Most used

21
MELD-NaAssesses the severity of chronic liver diseaseChild-Pugh ScoreAssesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosisFIB-4 IndexLiver fibrosis scoring indexAPRIAST to platelet ratio — liver fibrosisMaddrey's DFAlcoholic hepatitis severityGlasgow-BlatchfordUpper GI bleed risk stratificationGAHSGlasgow alcoholic hepatitis scoreMontreal IBDIBD classification — CD & UCMayo ScoreUlcerative colitis activityBISAP ScoreBedside index for severity of pancreatitisCLIF-SOFAOrgan failure scoring in cirrhosisAlcohol ContentStandard drinks & alcohol grams calculatorAARC-ACLFAcute-on-chronic liver failure gradePELD / CR ScorePediatric end-stage liver diseaseHarvey-BradshawCrohn's disease activity indexCTSICT severity index — pancreatitisRockall ScoreGI bleed rebleeding & mortality riskCAGEAlcohol use disorder screening (4 questions)MELD 3.0Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formulaAUDIT ScoreAlcohol use disorders identification testVOCAL-Penn ScorePost-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery

Liver & Cirrhosis

17
ALBI GradeAlbumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCCUKELD ScoreUK model for end-stage liver diseaseMELD-XIMELD excluding INR — for anticoagulated patientsWest Haven CriteriaHepatic encephalopathy gradingMilan CriteriaLiver transplant eligibility in hepatocellular carcinomaLI-RADS v2018 (CT/MRI)Liver observation category from size, APHE and major featuresBCLC StagingHepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocationSimplified AIH CriteriaSimplified criteria for autoimmune hepatitisRevised Original AIH ScoreIAIHG 1999 comprehensive autoimmune hepatitis scoreSAAGSerum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascitesR FactorHepatocellular vs cholestatic pattern in liver injuryCLIF-C ACLFMortality prediction in acute-on-chronic liver failureKing's College CriteriaTransplant criteria in acute liver failureGALAD ScoreHCC detection from gender, age, AFP-L3, AFP and DCPMetroticket 2.0AFP-adjusted up-to-seven for HCC transplant eligibilityRUCAMCausality in drug- and herb-induced liver injuryBaveno VII CriteriacACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

Fibrosis & MASLD

8
NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreAdvanced fibrosis probability in MASLD/NAFLDBARD ScoreBMI, AST/ALT ratio, diabetes — MASLD fibrosisFatty Liver IndexPredicts hepatic steatosis from routine labsFibrotic NASH Index (FNI)At-risk NASH probability from AST, HbA1c and HDLNAFLD Activity Score (NAS)Histologic activity grade — steatosis, inflammation, ballooningMEFIB IndexMRE + FIB-4 rule for significant fibrosis (≥F2) in MASLDFAST ScoreFibroScan-AST — at-risk NASH from LSM, CAP and ASTSAFE ScoreSteatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator for MASLD in primary care

Pancreas & Biliary

8
Ranson's CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity at 48 hoursGlasgow-Imrie CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteriaHAPSHarmless acute pancreatitis scoreTokyo Guidelines — CholangitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitisTokyo Guidelines — CholecystitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitisBiliary Pain (Rome IV)Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before interventionFunctional Pancreatic SODRome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorderRevised Atlanta ClassificationAcute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe

IBD

9
Truelove & Witts CriteriaAcute severe ulcerative colitis — admission decisionUCEISUlcerative colitis endoscopic index of severitySCCAISimple clinical colitis activity index — symptoms onlyCDAICrohn's disease activity index — the trial standardSES-CDEndoscopic severity in Crohn's diseasePUCAIPaediatric ulcerative colitis activity indexTravis (Oxford) CriteriaDay 3 colectomy risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisHo IndexDay 3 steroid failure risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisRutgeerts ScorePostoperative Crohn's recurrence at ileocolonoscopy

GI Bleeding

7
EVendo ScorePredicts oesophageal varices needing treatmentForrest ClassificationPeptic ulcer bleeding — rebleeding risk at endoscopyAIMS65 ScoreUpper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteriaOakland ScoreSafe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleedingABC ScoreAge, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortalitySarin ClassificationEndoscopic classification of gastric varicesEGUS (Gastric Ulcer)Malignancy risk in a gastric ulcer, and who needs repeat endoscopy

Alcohol

2
ABIC ScoreAge, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitisLille ModelSteroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis

Upper GI

4
Chicago Classification v4.0Oesophageal motility pattern from high-resolution manometryLA Classification (Oesophagitis)Los Angeles grade A–D for erosive oesophagitisPrague C & M CriteriaCircumferential and maximal extent of Barrett's oesophagusEREFS (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis)Endoscopic reference score — oedema, rings, exudates, furrows, stricture

Colorectal

3
Boston Bowel Prep ScaleColonoscopy preparation adequacy by segmentStool Osmotic GapOsmotic vs secretory diarrhoea from stool electrolytesATLAS Score (C. difficile)Predicted response to therapy in Clostridioides difficile infection

Functional GI

37
Bristol Stool ScaleStool form types 1–7 and colonic transitRome IV Criteria for IBSIrritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtypeFunctional ConstipationRome IV — two of six items, IBS excludedOpioid-Induced ConstipationRome IV — constipation tied to opioid therapyFunctional DiarrhoeaRome IV — loose stools without predominant painFunctional Bloating / DistensionRome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteriaUnspecified Functional Bowel DisorderRome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other categoryCentrally Mediated Abdominal Pain (CAPS)Rome IV — continuous pain unrelated to gut eventsNarcotic Bowel SyndromeRome IV — opioid-induced hyperalgesia of the gutFaecal Incontinence (Rome IV)Rome IV — the criteria, and why nobody is askedFunctional Anorectal PainLevator ani, unspecified pain and proctalgia fugaxFunctional Defecation DisordersRome IV — dyssynergia and inadequate propulsionInfant RegurgitationRome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it outInfant ColicRome IV — recurrent unexplained crying in a well infant under 5 monthsInfant DyscheziaRome IV — straining before a soft stool, and why not to intervenePaediatric Functional ConstipationRome IV — two of six over one month, with overflow soiling as a criterionToddler's DiarrhoeaRome IV functional diarrhoea of childhood — painless, thriving childPaediatric Cyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for eachPaediatric Rumination SyndromeRome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteriaFunctional Nausea & Vomiting (Children)Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met togetherAerophagiaRome IV — distension that increases through the dayPaediatric Functional DyspepsiaRome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtypingPaediatric Irritable Bowel SyndromeRome IV — plus the constipation clause clinicians missAbdominal MigraineRome IV — stereotypical incapacitating episodes weeks apartFunctional Abdominal Pain — NOSRome IV — the residual category, reached after the other threeNonretentive Faecal IncontinenceRome IV — soiling without retention, where laxatives make it worseFunctional DyspepsiaRome IV — with PDS and EPS subtypingRumination SyndromeRome IV — effortless regurgitation without retchingCyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — stereotypical episodic vomitingCannabinoid HyperemesisRome IV — CVS pattern relieved by cannabis cessationChronic Nausea & VomitingRome IV — chronic nausea and vomiting syndromeBelching DisordersRome IV — supragastric vs gastric belchingFunctional HeartburnRome IV — heartburn with normal acid exposureReflux HypersensitivityRome IV — normal acid exposure, positive symptom associationFunctional Chest PainRome IV — non-cardiac, non-reflux chest painGlobusRome IV — painless lump-in-throat sensationFunctional DysphagiaRome IV — dysphagia with normal endoscopy and manometry
  1. Calculators
  2. /
  3. ABC Score
GI Bleeding

ABC Score

Age, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortality

Age

1 point if 60–74, 2 points if ≥ 75.

Blood tests

1 point if urea > 10 mmol/L (BUN > 28 mg/dL).

2 points if albumin < 30 g/L (< 3.0 g/dL).

1 point if 100–150 µmol/L (1.13–1.70 mg/dL), 2 points if > 150 µmol/L (> 1.70 mg/dL).

Comorbidities

2 points.

2 points.

4 points — the heaviest single item.

1 point for ASA III, 3 points for ASA IV–V.

Eight items across age, blood tests and comorbidities, validated for 30-day mortality in both upper and lower GI bleeding. Labs are compared against their published thresholds — use the unit toggles if your laboratory reports differently.

When to use
Use it at presentation in a patient with acute upper or lower GI bleeding to estimate the risk of death within 30 days and so to guide the intensity of care — level of monitoring, seniority of review and escalation planning. Its distinguishing feature is breadth: unlike most bleeding scores it was derived and validated in both upper and lower GI bleeding, so it can be applied before the source is confirmed. It is a mortality tool, not a triage-to-discharge or intervention tool: it does not tell you who can go home (Glasgow-Blatchford or Oakland do that) or who needs endoscopic therapy.
Why use it
Because the established pre-endoscopy scores were built for intervention or discharge and predict death only indirectly, and ABC was created specifically to fill that gap with a dedicated, better-calibrated mortality score. It draws its strength from explicit comorbidity terms — cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy, ASA class, altered mental status — which capture the background illness that actually kills patients after a GI bleed, alongside age and simple labs. In its derivation and independent validations it discriminated 30-day mortality more sharply than AIMS65 and the Glasgow-Blatchford score, and it does so whether the bleed is upper or lower.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the ABC Score for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Mortality

The ABC score predicts 30-day mortality in acute gastrointestinal bleeding — upper or lower — from eight items grouped as Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities: age (1 point at 60–74, 2 at ≥75), urea > 10 mmol/L (1), albumin < 30 g/L (2), creatinine 100–150 µmol/L (1) or > 150 (2), altered mental status (2), liver cirrhosis (2), disseminated malignancy (4, the heaviest item) and ASA class III (1) or ≥ IV (3). It stratifies patients as low (≤ 3), medium (4–7) or high risk (≥ 8), with roughly 1%, 7% and 25% 30-day mortality in the derivation cohort. It was designed to predict death better than the older scores, and in validation it out-discriminates AIMS65 for mortality while working across both bleeding territories.

On this page

  • Formula
  • Interpreting the result
  • Inputs
  • What it returns
  • How it is calculated
  • Facts & figures
  • Evidence
  • How it compares
  • Pearls & pitfalls
  • Critical actions
  • Why it exists
  • About the creator
  • Limitations
  • If you are the patient
  • FAQ
  • Related calculators
  • References

Formula

ABC = age points + urea points + albumin points + creatinine points + mental-status points + cirrhosis points + malignancy points + ASA points
age points
0 (<60), 1 (60–74), 2 (≥75).
urea points
1 if > 10 mmol/L (BUN > ~28 mg/dL), else 0.
albumin points
2 if < 30 g/L (< 3.0 g/dL), else 0.
creatinine points
1 (100–150 µmol/L), 2 (> 150 µmol/L), else 0.
mental-status points
2 if altered, else 0.
cirrhosis points
2 if present, else 0.
malignancy points
4 if disseminated malignancy, else 0.
ASA points
1 (ASA III), 3 (ASA IV–V), else 0.
  • Disseminated malignancy (4 points) is the heaviest single item — advanced cancer dominates 30-day prognosis after a GI bleed.
  • Bands: ≤ 3 low, 4–7 medium, ≥ 8 high risk.
  • Published thresholds are in SI units (urea mmol/L, albumin g/L, creatinine µmol/L); the calculator converts entered values so the comparisons remain exact whichever unit you use.

Interpreting the result

Read the band, not just the number. A low score (≤ 3) corresponds to roughly 1% 30-day mortality in the derivation cohort — a group that can generally be managed on a standard pathway. A medium score (4–7) corresponds to about 7% and warrants admission with active management and a clear escalation plan. A high score (≥ 8) corresponds to around 25% and should prompt a monitored bed, early senior and possibly critical-care involvement, and explicit goals-of-care discussion where advanced comorbidity is driving the score. External validation cohorts have reported somewhat higher absolute mortality in each band (about 2%, 13% and 27%), but the ordering and the clinical message are consistent.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
0–3Low risk≈ 1% 30-day mortality (derivation); ~2% in validationStandard management pathway
4–7Medium risk≈ 7% 30-day mortality (derivation); ~13% in validationAdmit, manage actively, set an escalation plan
≥ 8High risk≈ 25% 30-day mortality (derivation); ~27% in validationMonitored bed, early senior/critical-care input, goals-of-care where appropriate

What the ABC Score needs (8 inputs)

Age
1 point at 60–74 years, 2 points at 75 or over; 0 below 60. The 'A' of ABC.
Urea
1 point if urea is above 10 mmol/L (equivalently BUN above about 28 mg/dL). A marker of both renal function and the volume of digested blood.
Albumin
2 points if albumin is below 30 g/L (3.0 g/dL). Low albumin reflects chronic illness and frailty, and carries substantial weight.
Creatinine
1 point at 100–150 µmol/L (about 1.13–1.70 mg/dL), 2 points above 150 µmol/L (> 1.70 mg/dL). Renal impairment is a strong independent predictor of death.
Altered mental status
2 points. Flags either haemodynamic compromise or a serious comorbidity such as encephalopathy or sepsis.
Liver cirrhosis
2 points. Cirrhosis raises mortality both directly and through variceal bleeding and coagulopathy.
Disseminated malignancy
4 points — the single heaviest item, reflecting how strongly advanced cancer dominates 30-day prognosis.
ASA physical status class
1 point for ASA III, 3 points for ASA IV–V; 0 for ASA I–II. A summary of overall systemic illness.

What it returns

ABC score (0–18)
The sum of the eight items. Higher scores indicate higher 30-day mortality.
Risk band
Low (≤ 3), medium (4–7) or high (≥ 8), each mapped to an approximate 30-day mortality.

How it is calculated

ABC is an integer points score derived by logistic regression on an international cohort and then simplified so each predictor carries a small whole-number weight. Its design choice — the reason it exists — is to foreground comorbidity: where AIMS65 leans on albumin, INR, blood pressure and age, ABC keeps age and simple labs but adds cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy, ASA class and altered mental status as explicit terms. Those comorbidity items are what let it predict death across both upper and lower GI bleeding, because much of the 30-day mortality after any GI bleed is determined by the patient's underlying illness rather than by the bleed itself.

Facts & figures

Point allocation
GroupItemPoints
Age60–74 / ≥751 / 2
BloodUrea > 10 mmol/L1
BloodAlbumin < 30 g/L2
BloodCreatinine 100–150 / >150 µmol/L1 / 2
ComorbidAltered mental status2
ComorbidLiver cirrhosis2
ComorbidDisseminated malignancy4
ComorbidASA III / ASA IV–V1 / 3

Total 0–18. Bands: ≤3 low, 4–7 medium, ≥8 high.

30-day mortality by band
BandDerivationExternal validation
Low (≤3)~1%~2%
Medium (4–7)~7%~13%
High (≥8)~25%~27%

Absolute rates vary by cohort; the risk ordering is stable.

Evidence

Derivation — international multicentre cohort

2021

Derived by Laursen and colleagues from an international, multicentre cohort of patients with acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding, selecting age, urea, albumin, creatinine, altered mental status, cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy and ASA class as independent predictors of 30-day mortality.

For upper GI bleeding the score discriminated 30-day mortality with an area under the ROC curve around 0.81, better than AIMS65 (~0.65) and the Glasgow-Blatchford score. Low, medium and high bands corresponded to roughly 1%, 7% and 25% mortality.

External validation — 30-day mortality

2022

Independent validation of the ABC score for 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal bleeding, testing the low/medium/high bands in a separate cohort.

Reproduced the score's discrimination and the rising mortality gradient across bands (approximately 2%, 13% and 27%), confirming its performance outside the derivation population.

How it compares

ABC Score vs AIMS65 Score

ABC generally out-discriminates AIMS65 for 30-day mortality and works in lower as well as upper GI bleeding, at the cost of a few more inputs and explicit comorbidity terms.

AIMS65 is a five-item count that predicts in-hospital mortality from albumin, INR, mental status, blood pressure and age. ABC keeps age and simple labs but adds cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy and ASA class, which is why it captured more of the mortality signal in head-to-head derivation and validation (AUROC ~0.81 vs ~0.65 for upper GI bleeding in the derivation). AIMS65 remains attractive for its brevity; ABC is the stronger dedicated mortality score.

Open the AIMS65 Score calculator →

ABC Score vs Glasgow-Blatchford Score

Different jobs: Glasgow-Blatchford identifies low-risk upper GI bleeds who can avoid intervention or admission, while ABC predicts 30-day mortality across upper and lower bleeding — use them together, not interchangeably.

Glasgow-Blatchford is a sensitivity-tuned triage score that excels at finding patients who need no treatment, but it predicts death only weakly. ABC is purpose-built for mortality and adds the comorbidity terms that Glasgow-Blatchford lacks. In an upper GI bleed, a reasonable pattern is Glasgow-Blatchford for the disposition decision and ABC for the prognostic estimate.

Open the Glasgow-Blatchford Score calculator →

Pearls & pitfalls

  • ABC predicts 30-day mortality, not the need for intervention or safe discharge — pair it with Glasgow-Blatchford or Oakland for those questions.
  • Disseminated malignancy alone contributes 4 points, enough to reach the medium band, which is appropriate but means the score is heavily comorbidity-driven.
  • Check units: the thresholds are urea > 10 mmol/L, albumin < 30 g/L and creatinine 100–150 / > 150 µmol/L. Entering BUN in mg/dL or albumin in g/dL without converting will misscore.
  • It works in both upper and lower GI bleeding, one of its main advantages over AIMS65 and Glasgow-Blatchford.
  • Absolute mortality per band runs higher in some validation cohorts than in the derivation; use the bands to rank risk rather than to quote a precise percentage.
  • A high score often reflects advanced underlying disease, so it should prompt a goals-of-care conversation as well as escalation of bleeding management.

Critical actions

  • Confirm the ASA class and comorbidities deliberately — cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy and altered mental status carry most of the weight and are easy to under-record.
  • Convert labs to the score's units (urea mmol/L, albumin g/L, creatinine µmol/L) or use the calculator's unit toggles so the thresholds apply correctly.
  • Escalate high-band patients (≥ 8) to a monitored setting with early senior input, and consider critical care.
  • Calculate Glasgow-Blatchford (upper) or Oakland (lower) alongside ABC when the decision is admission, intervention or discharge rather than prognosis.
  • Where a high score is driven by advanced malignancy or end-stage disease, discuss goals of care in parallel with resuscitation.

Why this score exists

The authors built ABC because the scores in daily use were optimised for other questions — Glasgow-Blatchford for intervention and safe discharge, Rockall for a mixed prognostic picture — leaving mortality prediction as a secondary, weaker output. Their deliberate move was to make comorbidity explicit: disseminated malignancy, cirrhosis, ASA class and altered mental status enter as named terms rather than being folded into a single 'comorbidity' category, and disseminated malignancy is weighted heaviest because it dominates short-term prognosis. Extending the derivation across both upper and lower GI bleeding was equally intentional, giving a single mortality score usable before the source is known.

About the creator

  • Stig Borbjerg Laursen

    First author, 2021 derivation and validation study

    Led the international multicentre work that derived the ABC score across Danish, UK, Italian and Spanish cohorts.

  • Adrian J. Stanley

    Senior author

    Also a co-author on the wider body of upper-GI bleeding risk-score validation, including comparisons against Glasgow-Blatchford.

Limitations

  • It predicts mortality only, and gives no information on rebleeding, transfusion need, intervention or safe discharge.
  • It is heavily weighted towards comorbidity, so a frail patient with a trivial bleed can score high — clinically true but occasionally counterintuitive.
  • Absolute mortality per band varies between cohorts, so the bands are better used for stratification than for precise counselling.
  • The comorbidity items (cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy, ASA) require accurate history and can be under-documented in a rushed presentation.
  • As a newer score it has less accumulated real-world validation than AIMS65, Rockall or Glasgow-Blatchford, though the evidence base is growing.

If you are the patient

The ABC score estimates the risk of dying within a month after bleeding from the gut, whether the bleeding is from the upper or lower part. Its name stands for Age, Blood tests and Comorbidities: it adds up your age, a few blood results (kidney tests and a protein called albumin), and other health conditions such as liver cirrhosis, advanced cancer, confusion, and overall fitness for anaesthesia. The total sorts people into low, medium or high risk — roughly a 1-in-100, 1-in-14, or 1-in-4 chance of dying within 30 days in the original study — which helps the team decide how closely to watch you and how urgently to involve senior doctors. It measures overall risk to life rather than whether the bleeding will stop, so it is used alongside other scores that answer those separate questions.

Frequently asked questions

What is the ABC score for GI bleeding?#

The ABC score (Age, Blood tests, Comorbidities) predicts 30-day mortality in acute upper or lower gastrointestinal bleeding. It scores age, urea, albumin, creatinine, altered mental status, liver cirrhosis, disseminated malignancy and ASA class, and sorts patients into low (≤3), medium (4–7) and high (≥8) risk.

What are the ABC score risk categories?#

Low risk is a score of 3 or below (about 1% 30-day mortality in the derivation cohort), medium risk is 4 to 7 (about 7%), and high risk is 8 or above (about 25%). External validation reported somewhat higher rates — roughly 2%, 13% and 27% — but the same ordering.

Is the ABC score better than AIMS65?#

For predicting mortality, yes in most studies. ABC was derived after AIMS65 and adds explicit comorbidity terms; in the derivation it discriminated 30-day mortality in upper GI bleeding better than AIMS65 (AUROC around 0.81 versus 0.65). AIMS65 is simpler, but ABC is the stronger dedicated mortality score and also covers lower GI bleeding.

Does the ABC score work for lower GI bleeding?#

Yes. Unlike AIMS65 and the Glasgow-Blatchford score, ABC was derived and validated in both upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding, so it can be applied before the bleeding source is confirmed.

What units does the ABC score use?#

The published thresholds are in SI units: urea above 10 mmol/L, albumin below 30 g/L, and creatinine of 100–150 or above 150 µmol/L. If your laboratory reports BUN in mg/dL or albumin in g/dL, convert first or use the calculator's unit toggle so the thresholds apply correctly.

Which item carries the most points?#

Disseminated malignancy, at 4 points — enough on its own to reach the medium-risk band. This reflects how strongly advanced cancer dominates 30-day prognosis after a gastrointestinal bleed.

Related calculators

  • AIMS65 Score — Upper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteria
  • Glasgow-Blatchford — Upper GI bleed risk stratification
  • Oakland Score — Safe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleeding

References

Original / primary reference

  1. Laursen SB, Oakland K, Laine L, et al. ABC score: a new risk score that accurately predicts mortality in acute upper and lower gastrointestinal bleeding: an international multicentre study. Gut. 2021;70(4):707-716.

Validation

  1. Validation of the new ABC score for predicting 30-day mortality in gastrointestinal bleeding. BMC Gastroenterol. 2022;22:277.

Clinical practice guidelines

  1. Laine L, Barkun AN, Saltzman JR, Martel M, Leontiadis GI. ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(5):899-917.
  2. Oakland K, Chadwick G, East JE, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding: guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology. Gut. 2019;68(5):776-789.

Further reading

  1. Saltzman JR, Tabak YP, Hyett BH, Sun X, Travis AC, Johannes RS. A simple risk score accurately predicts in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and cost in acute upper GI bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(6):1215-1224.
  2. Blatchford O, Murray WR, Blatchford M. A risk score to predict need for treatment for upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Lancet. 2000;356(9238):1318-1321.

Last updated July 30, 2026. Clinical knowledge base written and curated by GastroAGI Team from primary medical literature.

Written from primary literature and not yet independently clinically reviewed.

For use by qualified healthcare professionals. This calculator supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.