Risk assessment is widely used in upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) however no score accurately predicts all important clinical outcomes. This review discusses the performance of the Rockall score, pre-endsocopy Rockall score, Glasgow-Blatchford score, AIMS-65 and newer scores such as Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva and CANUKA scores. The quality of external validation varies considerably for each score. There is a relative lack of risk scores available for use in lower GI bleeding (LGIB) but recent developments have focussed on the identification of low risk patients. The BLEED, NOBLADS, Strate and Sengupta scores have been developed to predict severe bleeding or death, each with varying performance. The Oakland score has been developed to identify patients at low risk of adverse outcomes who may be suitable for outpatient management. The comparative performance of the LGIB scores and Rockall, Glasgow-Blatchford and AIMS-65 in the prediction of outcomes in LGIB is also discussed.

中文翻译：

---

上消化道出血和上消化道出血和下消化道出血的风险分层：我们应该使用哪些评分？

风险评估广泛用于上消化道出血（UGIB），但是没有分数能准确预测所有重要的临床结局。这篇评论讨论了Rockall评分，拷贝前Rockall评分，Glasgow-Blatchford评分，AIMS-65以及更新的评分（例如Progetto Nazionale Emorragia Digestiva和CANUKA评分）的表现。每个分数的外部验证质量差异很大。较低的胃肠道出血（LGIB）可用的风险评分相对缺乏，但最近的发展集中在对低风险患者的识别上。BLEED，NOBLADS，Strate和Sengupta评分已被开发出来，以预测严重的出血或死亡，每一种都有不同的表现。Oakland评分的开发是为了确定不良后果风险低的患者，这些患者可能适合门诊治疗。