Validating bowel preparation scales

Abstract

Background and study aim Few scales assessing bowel preparation quality have been validated, and direct between-scale comparisons remain scarce. The aim of the study was to compare inter- and intra-rater reliability, predictive abilities for clinical outcomes, and ease of use for each scale.

Methods Colonoscopy video recordings highlighting five colonic segments after washing were viewed independently by three physicians, and cleanliness was evaluated using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale (CBPS), and the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) in randomized order. Kappa or intraclass correlations quantified intra- and inter-rater reliability. Ease of use was evaluated (1 – 10 scale, 1 = easy), as were associations between scores, adenoma detection, and adequacy of preparation to exclude lesions ≥ 5 mm.

Results Among 83 colonoscopy videos, indications included screening or surveillance in 72.3 %. Mean (± SD) scores of the respective three raters were 5.17 ± 1.57, 6.49 ± 1.48, and 5.12 ± 1.21 for BBPS, and 23.73 ± 6.01, 28.39 ± 5.47, and 24.75 ± 5.83 for CBPS, while successful HCS scores (grade A or B) were given for 76 %, 89 %, and 63 % of examinations. Intra-rater reliability ranges were 0.88 – 1.00, 0.83 – 1.00, and 0.62 – 1.00 for BBPS, CBPS, and HCS, respectively. Similarly, inter-rater reliability ranges were 0.50 – 0.79, 0.64 – 0.83, and 0.28 – 0.52, respectively. Sources of disagreement included varying rater strictness, which was possibly most marked for preparations rated as intermediate. Overall, associations between preparation scores and adenoma detection lacked statistical significance.

Conclusion The BBPS and CBPS showed the best inter- and intra-rater reliability, and the BBPS was considered the easiest to use. Further studies are needed to determine an optimal adequacy threshold for these scales, with the goal of predicting clinical outcomes and determining the appropriate interval to the next colonoscopy.

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 5-29
• 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vital signs: colorectal cancer screening, incidence, and mortality – United States, 2002–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011; 60: 884-889
• 3 Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA. et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010; 116: 544-573
• 4 Yang DX, Gross CP, Soulos PR. et al. Estimating the magnitude of colorectal cancers prevented during the era of screening: 1976 to 2009. Cancer 2014; 120: 2893-2901
• 5 Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-79
• 6 Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ. et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-384
• 7 Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB. et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2014; 147: 903-924
• 8 Aronchick C, Lipshultz W, Wright S. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2667
• 9 Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
• 10 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
• 11 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
• 12 Gao Y, Lin JS, Zhang HD. et al. Pilot validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale in China. Dig Endosc 2013; 25: 167-173
• 13 Schindler AE, Chan WW, Obstein KL. Reliability of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale in the endoscopy nurse population. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: AB298
• 14 Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss HJ. et al. Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 121-131
• 15 Gerard DP, Foster DB, Raiser MW. et al. Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2013; 4: e43
• 16 Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A. et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197-204
• 17 Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1714-1723
• 18 Leddin D, Enns R, Hilsden R. et al. Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 224-228
• 19 Calderwood AH, Schroy 3rd PC , Lieberman DA. et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 269-276
• 20 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 21 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979; 86: 420-428
• 22 Fleiss J. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: Wiley Classic Library 1999: 1-32
• 23 Giraudeau B, Mary JY. Planning a reproducibility study: how many subjects and how many replicates per subject for an expected width of the 95 per cent confidence interval of the intraclass correlation coefficient. Stat Med 2001; 20: 3205-3214
• 24 Wong MC, Ching JY, Chan VC. et al. Determinants of bowel preparation quality and its association with adenoma detection: a prospective colonoscopy study. Medicine 2016; 95: e2251