Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines.

bowel preparation score validation

Journal

Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
ISSN: 2515-2092
Titre abrégé: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101738684

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2019
Historique:
entrez: 12 7 2019
pubmed: 12 7 2019
medline: 12 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) only modestly predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends repeating colonoscopies within the year if the preparation does not allow detection of polyps over 5 mm. This study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS). We compared an auditable application of MSTF guidelines termed the Montreal BPS (MBPS) with the BBPS using a total cut-off score ≥6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS2-6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3 mm rather than 5 mm and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS5). Videos of 83 colonoscopies (eight for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed. The BBPS2-6 and 5 mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44 to 0.63 and κ=0.50 to 0.53, respectively); inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25 to 0.48 and κ=0.19 to 0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS5 and 3 mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes. For all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values, the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate versus inadequate), differing from previous publications assessing scores as continuous variables. Further studies are required to optimally interpret bowel preparation scales with regard to interval to next colonoscopy.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Existing bowel preparation scales (BPS) only modestly predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends repeating colonoscopies within the year if the preparation does not allow detection of polyps over 5 mm.
AIM OBJECTIVE
This study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS).
METHODS METHODS
We compared an auditable application of MSTF guidelines termed the Montreal BPS (MBPS) with the BBPS using a total cut-off score ≥6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS2-6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3 mm rather than 5 mm and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS5). Videos of 83 colonoscopies (eight for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS RESULTS
The BBPS2-6 and 5 mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44 to 0.63 and κ=0.50 to 0.53, respectively); inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25 to 0.48 and κ=0.19 to 0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS5 and 3 mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
For all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values, the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate versus inadequate), differing from previous publications assessing scores as continuous variables. Further studies are required to optimally interpret bowel preparation scales with regard to interval to next colonoscopy.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31294366
doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy027
pii: gwy027
pmc: PMC6507282
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

57-62

Références

Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jul;58(1):76-9
pubmed: 12838225
J Clin Epidemiol. 1992 Oct;45(10):1131-6
pubmed: 1474409
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar;61(3):378-84
pubmed: 15758907
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Mar;69(3 Pt 2):620-5
pubmed: 19136102
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):686-92
pubmed: 20883845
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):142-50
pubmed: 23335011
Dig Endosc. 2013 Mar;25(2):167-73
pubmed: 23368700
Can J Gastroenterol. 2013 Apr;27(4):224-8
pubmed: 23616961
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76
pubmed: 24629422
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Nov;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724
pubmed: 25135006
Gastroenterology. 2014 Oct;147(4):903-24
pubmed: 25239068
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;14(5):775-6
pubmed: 25460559
Gut. 2015 Jun;64(6):991-1000
pubmed: 25748647
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr;25(2):403-13
pubmed: 25839693
Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct;29(7):384-90
pubmed: 26301330
Gastroenterology. 2016 Feb;150(2):396-405; quiz e14-5
pubmed: 26439436
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jan;95(2):e2251
pubmed: 26765402
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;111(2):197-204; quiz 205
pubmed: 26782820
N Engl J Med. 1993 Dec 30;329(27):1977-81
pubmed: 8247072
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571

Auteurs

Valérie Heron (V)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Myriam Martel (M)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Talat Bessissow (T)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Yen-I Chen (YI)

Division of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Etienne Désilets (E)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.

Catherine Dube (C)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Yidan Lu (Y)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Charles Menard (C)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.

Julia McNabb-Baltar (J)

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Robin Parmar (R)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Alaa Rostom (A)

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Alan N Barkun (AN)

Division of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Division of Clinical Epidemiology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Canada.

Classifications MeSH