Comparison of interobserver agreement for different scoring systems for reflux esophagitis: Impact of level of experience.

BACKGROUND The Savary-Miller, the Los Angeles, and the MUSE (metaplasia, ulcer, stricture, erosion) scoring systems have been developed to assess esophageal lesions related to GERD. Interobserver agreement for these systems was compared, with particular reference to the experience of the endoscopist. METHODS By using videoendoscopes, videotapes were made of the gastroesophageal junction of 60 patients who presented with symptoms suggestive of GERD. The Savary-Miller, the Los Angeles, and the MUSE systems were used to score all video clips by 9 endoscopists who were subgrouped by level of experience (3 levels, 3 endoscopists per level). Agreement was assessed by using weighted kappa statistics (kappa). RESULTS The Savary-Miller scoring system revealed moderate agreement for the experienced group (kappa=0.41) but performed poorly when applied by inexperienced raters (kappa=0.16). The Los Angeles system was most reproducible in all subgroups, irrespective of the level of experience (kappa=0.49 to 0.65). The MUSE scoring system was highly similar to the Los Angeles scoring system with respect to erosions and, in addition, allowed assessment of complications of GERD. CONCLUSIONS The Los Angeles and the MUSE scoring systems are most reliable for the assessment of erosions caused by GERD. Because of low reliability, use of the Savary-Miller scoring system is not recommended. For all scoring systems, interobserver agreement varies with the level of experience in the performance of upper endoscopy.

[1]  L. Demling Diagnostic assessment of gastroesophageal reflux disease: what is possible vs. what is practical? , 1992 .

[2]  J R Bennett,et al.  The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. , 1996, Gastroenterology.

[3]  D. Castell,et al.  Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux: Incidence and precipitating factors , 1976, The American Journal of Digestive Diseases.

[4]  A. Cameron,et al.  Barrett's esophagus: age, prevalence, and extent of columnar epithelium. , 1992, Gastroenterology.

[5]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Practical statistics for medical research , 1990 .

[6]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Barrett's esophagus. Reducing the risk of progression to adenocarcinoma. , 1999, Gastroenterology clinics of North America.

[7]  J. Siewert,et al.  [Therapy and prevention of reflux esophagitis. Results of a multicenter study with cimetidine. I: Epidemiology and results of acute therapy]. , 1986, Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie.

[8]  J. Pandolfino,et al.  Comparison of inter- and intraobserver consistency for grading of esophagitis by expert and trainee endoscopists. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  A. Blum,et al.  Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification , 1999, Gut.

[10]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[11]  O. Kawamura,et al.  Interobserver and intraobserver variation in endoscopic assessment of GERD using the "Los Angeles" classification. , 1999, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[12]  A. Klauser,et al.  Symptoms in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease , 1990, The Lancet.

[13]  J. Reynolds,et al.  Reducing the Risk of Progression to Adenocarcinoma , 1999 .