The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research

Background Few bowel-preparation rating scales have been validated. Most scales were intended for comparing oral purgatives and fail to account for washing and/or suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp-detection rates. Objective To...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2009-03, Vol.69 (3), p.620-625
Hauptverfasser: Lai, Edwin J., MD, Calderwood, Audrey H., MD, Doros, Gheorghe, PhD, Fix, Oren K., MD, MSc, Jacobson, Brian C., MD, MPH, FASGE
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Background Few bowel-preparation rating scales have been validated. Most scales were intended for comparing oral purgatives and fail to account for washing and/or suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp-detection rates. Objective To develop a valid and reliable scale for use in colonoscopy outcomes research. Setting Academic medical center. Methods We developed the Boston bowel preparation scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale that assesses bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist. We assessed interobserver and intraobserver reliability by using video footage of colonoscopies viewed on 2 separate occasions by 22 clinicians. We then applied the BBPS prospectively during screening colonoscopies and compared BBPS scores with clinically meaningful outcomes, including polyp-detection rates and procedure times. Results The intraclass correlation coefficient (a measure of interobserver reliability) for BBPS scores was 0.74. The weighted kappa (a measure of intraobserver reliability) for scores was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66-0.87). During 633 screening colonoscopies, the mean (SD) BBPS score was 6.0 ± 1.6. Higher BBPS scores (≥5 vs
ISSN:0016-5107
1097-6779
DOI:10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057