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 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 (> or =5 vs <5) were associated with a higher polyp-detection rate (40% vs 24%, P < .02). BBPS scores were inversely correlated with colonoscope insertion (r = -0.16, P < .003) and withdrawal (r = -0.23, P < .001) times. LIMITATIONS Single-center study. CONCLUSIONS The BBPS is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation. It may be well suited to colonoscopy outcomes research because it reflects the colon's cleanliness during the inspection phase of the procedure.

[1]  V. Sharma,et al.  Randomized, controlled study of pretreatment with magnesium citrate on the quality of colonoscopy preparation with polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution. , 1997, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

[2]  V. Sharma,et al.  Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. , 2003, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[3]  J. Church,et al.  Enhancing the quality of colonoscopy: the importance of bowel purgatives. , 2007, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[4]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Quantification of agreement in psychiatric diagnosis. A new approach. , 1967, Archives of general psychiatry.

[5]  A. Rostom,et al.  Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[6]  C. Berkelhammer,et al.  Low-volume oral colonoscopy bowel preparation: sodium phosphate and magnesium citrate. , 2002, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[7]  N. Suzuki,et al.  Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates. , 2006, Endoscopy.

[8]  Bernard Burnand,et al.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. , 2005, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  W. Lipshutz,et al.  A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. , 2000, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[10]  J. Barthel,et al.  Prospective, randomized trial comparing a new sodium phosphate-bisacodyl regimen with conventional PEG-ES lavage for outpatient colonoscopy preparation. , 1995, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[11]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  The Equivalence of Weighted Kappa and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as Measures of Reliability , 1973 .

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

[13]  P. Bjerregaard,et al.  Oral sodium phosphate versus sulfate-free polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in outpatient preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective comparison. , 1996, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[14]  Alan Agresti,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis , 2003 .

[15]  Huiman X Barnhart,et al.  Assessing intra, inter and total agreement with replicated readings , 2005, Statistics in medicine.