B P Chumpitazi1,2, M M Self1,3, D I Czyzewski1,2,3, S Cejka1, P R Swank4, R J Shulman1,2,5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 2. Section of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Menninger Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 4. University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Children's Nutrition Research Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rater reproducibility of the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), which categorizes stools into one of seven types, is unknown. We sought to determine reliability and agreement by individual stool type and when responses are categorized by Rome III clinical designation as normal or abnormal (constipation or diarrhea). METHODS: Thirty-four gastroenterology providers from three institutions rated 35 stool photographs using the BSFS. Twenty rerated the photographs. KEY RESULTS: 1190 individual stool type ratings were completed. Though only four photographs had absolute agreement (all Type 1 or Type 7), general agreement was high with 1132 (95.1%) of ratings being within one category type of the modal rating. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by individual stool type was excellent with intraclass correlations of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91, p < 0.001), respectively. However, agreement decreased when using Rome III designations with 13 (37%) photographs having significantly diverging classifications (semi-interquartile range = 0.5). These 13 photographs were rated by the majority of raters as either type 2 vs type 3 or type 5 vs type 6 stools, representing the boundaries of normal vs abnormal stools. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by Rome III clinical categorization decreased with intraclass correlations of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81, p < 0.001) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49-0.81, p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The Bristol Stool Form Scale has excellent reliability and agreement when used to rate individual stool type by raters. However, BSFS reliability and agreement decreases when determining Rome III stool form categories.
BACKGROUND: Rater reproducibility of the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), which categorizes stools into one of seven types, is unknown. We sought to determine reliability and agreement by individual stool type and when responses are categorized by Rome III clinical designation as normal or abnormal (constipation or diarrhea). METHODS: Thirty-four gastroenterology providers from three institutions rated 35 stool photographs using the BSFS. Twenty rerated the photographs. KEY RESULTS: 1190 individual stool type ratings were completed. Though only four photographs had absolute agreement (all Type 1 or Type 7), general agreement was high with 1132 (95.1%) of ratings being within one category type of the modal rating. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by individual stool type was excellent with intraclass correlations of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90, p < 0.001) and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91, p < 0.001), respectively. However, agreement decreased when using Rome III designations with 13 (37%) photographs having significantly diverging classifications (semi-interquartile range = 0.5). These 13 photographs were rated by the majority of raters as either type 2 vs type 3 or type 5 vs type 6 stools, representing the boundaries of normal vs abnormal stools. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliability of the BSFS by Rome III clinical categorization decreased with intraclass correlations of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.69-0.81, p < 0.001) and 0.65 (95% CI: 0.49-0.81, p < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The Bristol Stool Form Scale has excellent reliability and agreement when used to rate individual stool type by raters. However, BSFS reliability and agreement decreases when determining Rome III stool form categories.
Authors: Andrea Shin; Andres Acosta; Michael Camilleri; Amy Boldingh; Duane Burton; Michael Ryks; Deborah Rhoten; Alan R Zinsmeister Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: George F Longstreth; W Grant Thompson; William D Chey; Lesley A Houghton; Fermin Mearin; Robin C Spiller Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Alicia Ballard; Candace Parker-Autry; Chee Paul Lin; Alayne D Markland; David R Ellington; Holly E Richter Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jonathan D Nolan; Ian M Johnston; Sanjeev S Pattni; Tracy Dew; Timothy R Orchard; Julian R F Walters Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Klara Garsed; Julia Chernova; Margaret Hastings; Ching Lam; Luca Marciani; Gulzar Singh; Amanda Henry; Ian Hall; Peter Whorwell; Robin Spiller Journal: Gut Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Erica M Weidler; Mariella M Self; Danita I Czyzewski; Robert J Shulman; Bruno P Chumpitazi Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Robert J Shulman; Lena Öhman; Mats Stridsberg; Kevin Cain; Magnus Simrén; Margaret Heitkemper Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Antone R Opekun; Bruno P Chumpitazi; Mustafa M Abdulsada; Buford L Nichols Journal: Curr Opin Gastroenterol Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Benedetta M Motta; Christoph Grander; Martin Gögele; Luisa Foco; Vladimir Vukovic; Roberto Melotti; Christian Fuchsberger; Alessandro De Grandi; Chiara Cantaloni; Anne Picard; Deborah Mascalzoni; Alessandra Rossini; Cristian Pattaro; Herbert Tilg; Peter P Pramstaller Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 5.531