Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294366›Full record

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.

Valérie Heron, Myriam Martel, Talat Bessissow, Yen-I Chen, Etienne Désilets, Catherine Dube, Yidan Lu, Charles Menard, Julia McNabb-Baltar, Robin Parmar and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Valérie HeronDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Myriam MartelDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Talat BessissowDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2610-1910
Yen-I ChenDivision of Gastroenterology, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Etienne DésiletsDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Catherine DubeDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Yidan LuDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Charles MenardDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada.
Julia McNabb-BaltarDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Robin ParmarDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Alaa RostomDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Alan N BarkunDivision of Gastroenterology, The McGill University Health Center, Montreal General Hospital, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bowel preparationscorevalidation

Identifiers

PMID31294366
PMCPMC6507282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.