ArticleJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology2019
Comparison of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale with an Auditable Application of the US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interobserver variability in colonoscopy quality assessment: a retrospective standardized multicenter video-based study.Archive of clinical cases · 2026Article
- Is the Transverse Colon Overlooked? Establishing a Comprehensive Colonoscopy Database from a Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-assisted system for automatic Boston scoring of bowel cleanliness in colonoscopy (with video).Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Bowel preparation assessment using artificial intelligence: Systematic review.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Observation of the application effect of low-volume polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution (PEG-ELS) combined with ascorbic acid tablets in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hospitalized patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Automated Detection of Bowel Preparation Scoring and Adequacy With Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Use of U-Net Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Segmentation of Fecal Material for Objective Evaluation of Bowel Preparation Quality in Colonoscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Incorporating Helicobacter pylori Infection: A Novel Model for Predicting Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia.HelicobacterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting bowel preparation scales (BPS) only modestly predict interval to next colonoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force (MSTF) recommends repeating colonoscopies within the year if the preparation does not allow detection of polyps over 5 mm.
aimThis study aims to assess reliability and validity of an auditable application of the MSTF compared with the Boston BPS (BBPS).
methodsWe compared an auditable application of MSTF guidelines termed the Montreal BPS (MBPS) with the BBPS using a total cut-off score ≥6 with each segment score ≥2 (BBPS2-6). In sensitivity analyses, we applied the MBPS using a cut-off of 3 mm rather than 5 mm and also assessed the BBPS using an adequacy threshold of total score ≥5 (BBPS5). Videos of 83 colonoscopies (eight for intra-rater agreements) were independently evaluated by nine physicians. Weighted kappas quantified intra- and inter-rater agreements. Associations between scores and clinical outcomes were assessed.
resultsThe BBPS2-6 and 5 mm MBPS showed moderate to substantial intra-rater agreements (κ=0.44 to 0.63 and κ=0.50 to 0.53, respectively); inter-rater agreements were only fair to moderate and slight to moderate (κ=0.25 to 0.48 and κ=0.19 to 0.50, respectively). Similar results were noted using alternate thresholds of BBPS5 and 3 mm MBPS. No significant associations were found between scores and clinical outcomes.
conclusionFor all scales, intra-rater kappas were superior to inter-rater values, the latter reflecting at best moderate agreement. This modest performance may reflect the dichotomized interpretation of the scales (adequate versus inadequate), differing from previous publications assessing scores as continuous variables. Further studies are required to optimally interpret bowel preparation scales with regard to interval to next colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.