Literature DB >> 19136102

The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research.

Edwin J Lai1, Audrey H Calderwood, Gheorghe Doros, Oren K Fix, Brian C Jacobson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few bowel-preparation rating scales have been validated. Most scales were intended for comparing oral purgatives and fail to account for washing and/or suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp-detection rates.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a valid and reliable scale for use in colonoscopy outcomes research.
SETTING: Academic medical center.
METHODS: We developed the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale that assesses bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist. We assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability by using video footage of colonoscopies viewed on 2 separate occasions by 22 clinicians. We then applied the BBPS prospectively during screening colonoscopies and compared BBPS scores with clinically meaningful outcomes, including polyp-detection rates and procedure times.
RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient (a measure of interobserver reliability) for BBPS scores was 0.74. The weighted kappa (a measure of intraobserver reliability) for scores was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87). During 633 screening colonoscopies, the mean (SD) BBPS score was 6.0 +/- 1.6. Higher BBPS scores (> or =5 vs <5) were associated with a higher polyp-detection rate (40% vs 24%, P < .02). BBPS scores were inversely correlated with colonoscope insertion (r = -0.16, P < .003) and withdrawal (r = -0.23, P < .001) times. LIMITATIONS: Single-center study.
CONCLUSIONS: The BBPS is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation. It may be well suited to colonoscopy outcomes research because it reflects the colon's cleanliness during the inspection phase of the procedure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19136102      PMCID: PMC2763922          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  15 in total

Review 1.  Enhancing the quality of colonoscopy: the importance of bowel purgatives.

Authors:  Carol A Burke; James M Church
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Oral sodium phosphate versus sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in outpatient preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective comparison.

Authors:  W K Clarkston; T N Tsen; D F Dies; C L Schratz; S K Vaswani; P Bjerregaard
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. A new approach.

Authors:  R L Spitzer; J Cohen; J L Fleiss; J Endicott
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1967-07

4.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.

Authors:  J R Landis; G G Koch
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1977-03       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda.

Authors:  C A Aronchick; W H Lipshutz; S H Wright; F Dufrayne; G Bergman
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia.

Authors:  Gavin C Harewood; Virender K Sharma; Pat de Garmo
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Prospective, randomized trial comparing a new sodium phosphate-bisacodyl regimen with conventional PEG-ES lavage for outpatient colonoscopy preparation.

Authors:  S A Afridi; J S Barthel; P D King; J J Pineda; J B Marshall
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate.

Authors:  Charles Berkelhammer; Anita Ekambaram; Rogelio G Silva; Rogelia G Silva
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Colonoscopic bowel preparations--which one? A blinded, prospective, randomized trial.

Authors:  R W Golub; B A Kerner; W E Wise; D M Meesig; R F Hartmann; K S Khanduja; P S Aguilar
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality.

Authors:  Alaa Rostom; Emilie Jolicoeur
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  279 in total

1.  Assessing bowel preparation quality using the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Richard M Rosenberg; Alfred I Neugut; Randi Wolf; Corey H Basch; Jennie Mata; Edwin Hernandez; Douglas A Corley; Steven Shea; Charles E Basch
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.409

2.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  Update on preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Stephen W Landreneau; Jack A Di Palma
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2010-10

Review 4.  Quality in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Katherine T Brunner; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-10

5.  Fear of the Unseen.

Authors:  Brandon Sprung; Christine Granato; Danielle Marino
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 6.  Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Robin Parmar; Myriam Martel; Alaa Rostom; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Comparison of 4-L Polyethylene Glycol and 2-L Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis.

Authors:  Eun Soo Kim; Kyeong Ok Kim; Byung Ik Jang; Eun Young Kim; Yoo Jin Lee; Hyun Seok Lee; Seong Woo Jeon; Hyun Jin Kim; Sung Kook Kim
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  An Automated Inpatient Split-dose Bowel Preparation System Improves Colonoscopy Quality and Reduces Repeat Procedures.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Elyse R Johnston; Adam B Gluskin; Dyanna L Gregory; Rachel Cyrus; Lindsay Werth; Jody D Ciolino; David P Grande; Rajesh N Keswani
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 3.062

9.  Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Martha Goodrich; Julia E Weiss
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-05-10       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Danielle M Tholey; Corbett E Shelton; Gloria Francis; Archana Anantharaman; Robert A Frankel; Paurush Shah; Amy Coan; Sarah E Hegarty; Benjamin E Leiby; David M Kastenberg
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.