...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology >Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines
【24h】

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

机译:波士顿肠道准备量表与美国多社会工作队指南的可审核应用的比较

获取原文

摘要

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.
机译:背景现有的肠道准备量表(BPS)仅适度预测下一次结肠镜检查的间隔。如果准备工作不允许检测超过5毫米的息肉,美国多社会工作队(MSTF)建议在一年内重复结肠镜检查。目的本研究旨在评估与波士顿BPS(BBPS)相比,MSTF可审核应用程序的可靠性和有效性。方法我们比较了被称为蒙特利尔BPS(MBPS)的MSTF指南和BBPS的可审计应用程序,总分值≥6,而每个分项得分≥2(BBPS2-6)。在敏感性分析中,我们使用3mm而不是5mm的临界值应用MBPS,并且还使用总分≥5(BBPS5)的适当阈值评估BBPS。由九位医师独立评估了83例结肠镜检查的视频(其中8项属于评估者协议)。加权kappas量化了评估者内部和评估者之间的协议。评估分数与临床结果之间的关联。结果BBPS2-6和5 mm MBPS表现出中等至高的评分者内部一致性(分别为κ= 0.44至0.63和κ= 0.50至0.53)。评分者之间的协议只有中等到中等,轻微到中等(分别为κ= 0.25至0.48和κ= 0.19至0.50)。使用BBPS5和3 mm MBPS的替代阈值时,观察到相似的结果。在评分和临床结果之间未发现显着关联。结论在所有量表上,评估者内部的Kappas均优于评估者之间的值,后者反映了最佳的适度一致性。这种适度的表现可能反映了量表的二分法解释(适当与不适当),这与以前的将分数作为连续变量评估的出版物有所不同。需要进一步研究以就下一次结肠镜检查的间隔最佳地解释肠道准备量表。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号