M R Blake1,2, J M Raker1, K Whelan1. 1. Diabetes and Nutritional Sciences Division, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. 2. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Monash University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) is a 7-point scale used extensively in clinical practice and research for stool form measurement, which has undergone limited validity and reliability testing. AIM: To determine the validity and reliability of the BSFS in measuring stool form in healthy adults and patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine healthy volunteers provided a stool sample and used the BSFS to classify stool form, which was compared with measured stool water content and with values from 19 patients with IBS-D. Eighty-six volunteers used the BSFS to classify 26 stool models to determine accuracy and reliability. RESULTS: Volunteers' classifications of stool type correlated with stool water (Spearman's rho = 0.491, P < 0.001), which increased in hard (Types 1-2), normal (Types 3-5) and loose stools (Types 6-7) (P < 0.001). The BSFS detected differences in stool form between healthy volunteers (mean 3.7, s.d. 1.5) and IBS-D patients (mean 5.0, s.d. 1.2) (P < 0.001). Overall, 977/1204 (81%) stool models were correctly classified (substantial accuracy, κ = 0.78), although <80% of Types 2, 3, 5 and 6 were classified correctly. On 852/1118 (76%) occasions, volunteers classified covert duplicate models to the same stool type (substantial reliability, κ = 0.72), but with only moderate reliability for Types 2 (63%, κ = 0.57) and 3 (62%, κ = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The BSFS demonstrated substantial validity and reliability, although difficulties arose around clinical decision points (Types 2, 3, 5, 6) that warrant investigation in larger clinical populations. Potential for improving validity and reliability through modifications to the BSFS or training in its use should be explored.
BACKGROUND: The Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) is a 7-point scale used extensively in clinical practice and research for stool form measurement, which has undergone limited validity and reliability testing. AIM: To determine the validity and reliability of the BSFS in measuring stool form in healthy adults and patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine healthy volunteers provided a stool sample and used the BSFS to classify stool form, which was compared with measured stool water content and with values from 19 patients with IBS-D. Eighty-six volunteers used the BSFS to classify 26 stool models to determine accuracy and reliability. RESULTS: Volunteers' classifications of stool type correlated with stool water (Spearman's rho = 0.491, P < 0.001), which increased in hard (Types 1-2), normal (Types 3-5) and loose stools (Types 6-7) (P < 0.001). The BSFS detected differences in stool form between healthy volunteers (mean 3.7, s.d. 1.5) and IBS-Dpatients (mean 5.0, s.d. 1.2) (P < 0.001). Overall, 977/1204 (81%) stool models were correctly classified (substantial accuracy, κ = 0.78), although <80% of Types 2, 3, 5 and 6 were classified correctly. On 852/1118 (76%) occasions, volunteers classified covert duplicate models to the same stool type (substantial reliability, κ = 0.72), but with only moderate reliability for Types 2 (63%, κ = 0.57) and 3 (62%, κ = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The BSFS demonstrated substantial validity and reliability, although difficulties arose around clinical decision points (Types 2, 3, 5, 6) that warrant investigation in larger clinical populations. Potential for improving validity and reliability through modifications to the BSFS or training in its use should be explored.
Authors: Jessica C Sassani; Kelly Kantartzis; Liwen Wu; Anthony Fabio; Halina M Zyczynski Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Velda J González-Mercado; Anujit Sarkar; Frank J Penedo; Josué Pérez-Santiago; Susan McMillan; Sara Janet Marrero; Miguel A Marrero-Falcón; Cindy L Munro Journal: J Sleep Res Date: 2019-10-10 Impact factor: 3.981
Authors: Alex E Mohr; Ralf Jäger; Katie C Carpenter; Chad M Kerksick; Martin Purpura; Jeremy R Townsend; Nicholas P West; Katherine Black; Michael Gleeson; David B Pyne; Shawn D Wells; Shawn M Arent; Richard B Kreider; Bill I Campbell; Laurent Bannock; Jonathan Scheiman; Craig J Wissent; Marco Pane; Douglas S Kalman; Jamie N Pugh; Carmen P Ortega-Santos; Jessica A Ter Haar; Paul J Arciero; Jose Antonio Journal: J Int Soc Sports Nutr Date: 2020-05-12 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Kristen Aiemjoy; Solomon Aragie; Sintayehu Gebresillasie; Dionna M Fry; Adane Dagnew; Dagnachew Hailu; Melsew Chanyalew; Zerihun Tadesse; Aisha Stewart; Kelly Callahan; Mathew Freeman; John Neuhaus; Benjamin F Arnold; Jeremy D Keenan Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Shuji Mitsuhashi; Sarah Ballou; Zhenghui G Jiang; William Hirsch; Judy Nee; Johanna Iturrino; Vivian Cheng; Anthony Lembo Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Seung-Min Park; Daeyoun D Won; Brian J Lee; Diego Escobedo; Andre Esteva; Amin Aalipour; T Jessie Ge; Jung Ha Kim; Susie Suh; Elliot H Choi; Alexander X Lozano; Chengyang Yao; Sunil Bodapati; Friso B Achterberg; Jeesu Kim; Hwan Park; Youngjae Choi; Woo Jin Kim; Jung Ho Yu; Alexander M Bhatt; Jong Kyun Lee; Ryan Spitler; Shan X Wang; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Nat Biomed Eng Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 25.671
Authors: Paul T Heitmann; Paul F Vollebregt; Charles H Knowles; Peter J Lunniss; Phil G Dinning; S Mark Scott Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2021-08-09 Impact factor: 46.802