Audrey H Calderwood1, Brian C Jacobson. 1. Section of Gastroenterology, Boston University Medical Center, 85 East Concord Street, 7th Floor, Boston, MA 02118, USA. audrey.calderwood@bmc.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is a novel bowel cleanliness rating scale that has undergone partial validation previously. OBJECTIVE: To fully validate the BBPS and assess the ease of its dissemination. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Various endoscopy units worldwide. SUBJECTS: Endoscopists. METHODS: Video recordings of colonoscopies with varying degrees of cleanliness were viewed twice by gastroenterologists at 1 medical center. For each video, participants assigned segment and total BBPS scores. Endoscopists worldwide were also surveyed about their experience with the BBPS after viewing an instructional video. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients and weighted κ values assessed inter- and intrarater reliability, respectively. The BBPS was used among 983 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: The BBPS demonstrated near-perfect interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91) and substantial intrarater reliability (weighted κ = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84). Among 983 colonoscopies, right and left colon segment scores of 2 or 3 had a multivariate odds ratio of 1.60 (95% CI, 1.01-2.55) and 2.58 (95% CI, 1.34-4.98), respectively, for polyp detection compared with segment scores of 0 or 1. Endoscopists from a variety of settings worldwide found the BBPS easy to implement and applicable to their patient population. LIMITATIONS: Single-center reliability testing. CONCLUSIONS: The BBPS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy. Segment scores may represent a standardized way to determine bowel preparation adequacy. The BBPS can be easily disseminated through the use of a brief instructional video.
BACKGROUND: The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) is a novel bowel cleanliness rating scale that has undergone partial validation previously. OBJECTIVE: To fully validate the BBPS and assess the ease of its dissemination. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Various endoscopy units worldwide. SUBJECTS: Endoscopists. METHODS: Video recordings of colonoscopies with varying degrees of cleanliness were viewed twice by gastroenterologists at 1 medical center. For each video, participants assigned segment and total BBPS scores. Endoscopists worldwide were also surveyed about their experience with the BBPS after viewing an instructional video. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients and weighted κ values assessed inter- and intrarater reliability, respectively. The BBPS was used among 983 patients undergoing screening colonoscopy. RESULTS: The BBPS demonstrated near-perfect interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.91) and substantial intrarater reliability (weighted κ = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.73-0.84). Among 983 colonoscopies, right and left colon segment scores of 2 or 3 had a multivariate odds ratio of 1.60 (95% CI, 1.01-2.55) and 2.58 (95% CI, 1.34-4.98), respectively, for polyp detection compared with segment scores of 0 or 1. Endoscopists from a variety of settings worldwide found the BBPS easy to implement and applicable to their patient population. LIMITATIONS: Single-center reliability testing. CONCLUSIONS: The BBPS is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing bowel cleanliness during colonoscopy. Segment scores may represent a standardized way to determine bowel preparation adequacy. The BBPS can be easily disseminated through the use of a brief instructional video.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Paul J Karanicolas; Mohit Bhandari; Hans Kreder; Antonio Moroni; Martin Richardson; Stephen D Walter; Geoff R Norman; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Nancy N Baxter; Meredith A Goldwasser; Lawrence F Paszat; Refik Saskin; David R Urbach; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Edwin J Lai; Audrey H Calderwood; Gheorghe Doros; Oren K Fix; Brian C Jacobson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-01-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Brian B Borg; Nitin K Gupta; Gary R Zuckerman; Bhaskar Banerjee; C Prakash Gyawali Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Franchesca Arias; Michael Riverso; Shellie-Anne Levy; Rebecca Armstrong; David S Estores; Patrick Tighe; Catherine C Price Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.623
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
Authors: Audrey H Calderwood; Judith R Logan; Michael Zurfluh; David A Lieberman; Brian C Jacobson; Timothy C Heeren; Paul C Schroy Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.062