AIM: The study is aim to compare two kinds of cleaning score system for capsule endoscopy, with a view of these two cleaning score system can help to evaluate small bowel cleanliness. METHODS: Three readers evaluated these two cleaning score system by assessing the inter-observer, intra-patient, and intraobserver agreement. RESULTS: The assessment of the reliability and concordance, inter-observer agreement and intra-patient agreement of System1 and System2 was excellent with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values of 0.873, 0.821, 0.863 and 0.772. The data regarding the assessment on intra-observer agreement and intrapatient agreement of System1 and System2 were available and the results were also excellent with ICC values of 0.887, 0.846, 0.870 and 0.809. The overall adequacy assessment of System1 and System2, there was no significant difference among the three readers of inter-observer agreement (X2 = 0.051, P = 0.822, X2 = 0.085, P = 0.081, X2 = 0.048, P = 0.827) and intra- patient agreement (X2 = 0.196, P = 0.658, X2 = 0.208, P = 0.648, X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817), neither was intra-observer agreement (X2 = 0.208, P = 0.648, X2 = 0.223, P = 0.637, X2 = 0.484, P = 0.487) and intrapatient agreement (X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817, X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817, X2 = 0519, P = 0.471). CONCLUSION: The two system both are simple, operable, and can be used in clinical practice.
AIM: The study is aim to compare two kinds of cleaning score system for capsule endoscopy, with a view of these two cleaning score system can help to evaluate small bowel cleanliness. METHODS: Three readers evaluated these two cleaning score system by assessing the inter-observer, intra-patient, and intraobserver agreement. RESULTS: The assessment of the reliability and concordance, inter-observer agreement and intra-patient agreement of System1 and System2 was excellent with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values of 0.873, 0.821, 0.863 and 0.772. The data regarding the assessment on intra-observer agreement and intrapatient agreement of System1 and System2 were available and the results were also excellent with ICC values of 0.887, 0.846, 0.870 and 0.809. The overall adequacy assessment of System1 and System2, there was no significant difference among the three readers of inter-observer agreement (X2 = 0.051, P = 0.822, X2 = 0.085, P = 0.081, X2 = 0.048, P = 0.827) and intra- patient agreement (X2 = 0.196, P = 0.658, X2 = 0.208, P = 0.648, X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817), neither was intra-observer agreement (X2 = 0.208, P = 0.648, X2 = 0.223, P = 0.637, X2 = 0.484, P = 0.487) and intrapatient agreement (X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817, X2 = 0.054, P = 0.817, X2 = 0519, P = 0.471). CONCLUSION: The two system both are simple, operable, and can be used in clinical practice.