Parmar Robin, Martel Myriam, Rostom Alaa, Barkun Alan N
Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Center, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Division of Gastroenterology, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;111(2):197-204; quiz 205. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
Bowel cleanliness is a critical determinant of colonoscopy quality, mandating its standardized assessment, yet bowel preparation scales have been variably validated. The objective of this study was to assess validity and reliability of existing bowel preparation scales.
A systematic review of literature from January 1980 to January 2015 was performed. Main outcomes of this study are face, content, construct, and criterion validity, and inter- and intra-observer reliability measured by associations, interclass correlations (ICC) or κ-coefficients.
Fourteen citations assessed seven scales. The Aronchick Scale, showed fair-to-substantial inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.31-0.76), and was the reference for subsequent validity testing. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale revealed superior inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.94). Five studies assessed the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Increasing BBPS scores were associated with polyp detection (left colon: odds ratio (OR)=2.58 (1.34; 4.98), right colon: OR=1.6 (1.01; 2.55), less repeat colonoscopies (cutoff of 5, P<0.001), and shorter insertion/withdrawal times (P<0.001), while displaying substantial to excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability (ICC=0.74-0.91). Criterion validity of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) yielded slight-to-moderate expert-investigator agreement (ICC=0.15-0.46); HCS grades were not discriminant for adenoma detection. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were fair-to-moderate (ICC=0.46 (0.37; 0.54) and κ=0.28, respectively). The Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale displayed excellent inter-observer reliability (Pearson's r=0.84 (0.79; 0.88)), yet has been less studied.
To conclude, all the published scales displayed limitations. The BBPS is the most thoroughly validated scale and should be used in a clinical setting. Between-scale comparisons for repeat colonoscopy time interval, ease, and pertinence of use for auditing are needed.
肠道清洁度是结肠镜检查质量的关键决定因素,要求对其进行标准化评估,但肠道准备量表的有效性验证存在差异。本研究的目的是评估现有肠道准备量表的有效性和可靠性。
对1980年1月至2015年1月的文献进行系统综述。本研究的主要结果是表面效度、内容效度、结构效度和效标效度,以及通过相关性、组内相关系数(ICC)或κ系数测量的观察者间和观察者内信度。
14篇文献评估了7种量表。阿龙奇克量表显示出中等至较高的观察者间信度(ICC = 0.31 - 0.76),并作为后续效度测试的参考。渥太华肠道准备质量量表显示出更高的观察者间信度(ICC = 0.94)。五项研究评估了波士顿肠道准备量表(BBPS)。BBPS评分增加与息肉检出相关(左半结肠:优势比(OR)= 2.58(1.34;4.98),右半结肠:OR = 1.6(1.01;2.55)),重复结肠镜检查次数减少(临界值为5,P < 0.001),插入/退出时间缩短(P < 0.001),同时显示出较高的观察者间和观察者内信度(ICC = 0.74 - 0.91)。哈菲尔德清洁量表(HCS)的效标效度显示出轻微至中等的专家 - 研究者一致性(ICC = 0.15 - 0.46);HCS分级对腺瘤检出无鉴别力。观察者间和观察者内信度中等(ICC分别为0.46(0.37;0.54)和κ = 0.28)。芝加哥肠道准备量表显示出出色的观察者间信度(皮尔逊r = 0.84(0.79;0.88)),但研究较少。
总之,所有已发表的量表都存在局限性。BBPS是验证最充分的量表,应在临床环境中使用。需要对重复结肠镜检查的时间间隔、操作难易程度以及用于审核的适用性进行量表间比较。