Suppr超能文献

波士顿肠道准备量表与美国多学会特别工作组指南可审计应用的比较。

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

作者信息

Heron Valérie, Martel Myriam, Bessissow Talat, Chen Yen-I, Désilets Etienne, Dube Catherine, Lu Yidan, Menard Charles, McNabb-Baltar Julia, Parmar Robin, Rostom Alaa, Barkun Alan N

机构信息

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

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

出版信息

J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2019 May;2(2):57-62. doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwy027. Epub 2018 Jun 29.

Abstract

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

This study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS).

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

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

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.

摘要

背景

现有的肠道准备量表(BPS)只能适度预测距离下次结肠镜检查的时间间隔。美国多学会特别工作组(MSTF)建议,如果肠道准备不允许检测到直径超过5毫米的息肉,则应在一年内重复进行结肠镜检查。

目的

本研究旨在评估与波士顿BPS(BBPS)相比,MSTF可审计应用的可靠性和有效性。

方法

我们将一种称为蒙特利尔BPS(MBPS)的MSTF指南可审计应用与BBPS进行了比较,使用总分≥6且各部分得分≥2的总临界值(BBPS2 - 6)。在敏感性分析中,我们应用临界值为3毫米而非5毫米的MBPS,并使用总分≥5的充分性阈值评估BBPS(BBPS5)。83例结肠镜检查的视频(8例用于评估评分者内一致性)由9名医生独立评估。加权卡帕系数量化了评分者内和评分者间的一致性。评估了评分与临床结果之间的关联。

结果

BBPS2 - 6和5毫米MBPS显示出中度至高度的评分者内一致性(κ分别为0.44至0.63和0.50至0.53);评分者间一致性仅为一般至中度以及轻微至中度(κ分别为0.25至0.48和0.19至0.50)。使用BBPS5和3毫米MBPS的替代阈值时也得到了类似结果。评分与临床结果之间未发现显著关联。

结论

对于所有量表,评分者内卡帕系数优于评分者间值,后者充其量反映出中度一致性。这种一般的表现可能反映了量表的二分法解释(充分与不充分),这与先前将评分作为连续变量进行评估的出版物不同。需要进一步研究以最佳地解释肠道准备量表与距离下次结肠镜检查时间间隔的关系。

相似文献

2
Validating bowel preparation scales.验证肠道准备量表。
Endosc Int Open. 2017 Dec;5(12):E1179-E1188. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-119749. Epub 2017 Nov 21.
3
Pilot validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale in China.在中国对波士顿肠道准备量表进行初步验证。
Dig Endosc. 2013 Mar;25(2):167-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2012.01356.x. Epub 2012 Jul 27.
4
Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review.结肠清洁的验证量表:系统评价
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;111(2):197-204; quiz 205. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
5
Artificial intelligence for the assessment of bowel preparation.人工智能在肠道准备评估中的应用。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Mar;95(3):512-518.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.11.041. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
6
Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale.波士顿肠道准备量表的综合验证。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):686-92. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.06.068.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review.结肠清洁的验证量表:系统评价
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;111(2):197-204; quiz 205. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.417. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
5
The big picture: does colonoscopy work?总体情况:结肠镜检查有效吗?
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015 Apr;25(2):403-13. doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2014.12.002. Epub 2015 Feb 7.
7
Reliability of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale in the Endoscopy Nurse Population.波士顿肠道准备量表在内镜护士群体中的可靠性
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 May;14(5):775-6. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.11.011. Epub 2014 Nov 15.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验