MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291833043 · doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.417

Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review

2016· review· en· W2291833043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin Parmar, Myriam Martel, Alaa Rostom, Alan Barkun

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversity of OttawaOttawa HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColonoscopyConstruct validityReliability (semiconductor)Discriminant validityCutoffValidityOdds ratioScale (ratio)Criterion validityInternal medicinePsychometricsColorectal cancerClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Bowel cleanliness is a critical determinant of colonoscopy quality, mandating its standardized assessment, yet bowel preparation scales have been variably validated. The objective of this study was to assess validity and reliability of existing bowel preparation scales. METHODS: A systematic review of literature from January 1980 to January 2015 was performed. Main outcomes of this study are face, content, construct, and criterion validity, and inter- and intra-observer reliability measured by associations, interclass correlations (ICC) or κ-coefficients. RESULTS: Fourteen citations assessed seven scales. The Aronchick Scale, showed fair-to-substantial inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.31-0.76), and was the reference for subsequent validity testing. The Ottawa Bowel Preparation Quality Scale revealed superior inter-observer reliability (ICC=0.94). Five studies assessed the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). Increasing BBPS scores were associated with polyp detection (left colon: odds ratio (OR)=2.58 (1.34; 4.98), right colon: OR=1.6 (1.01; 2.55), less repeat colonoscopies (cutoff of 5, P<0.001), and shorter insertion/withdrawal times (P<0.001), while displaying substantial to excellent inter- and intra-observer reliability (ICC=0.74-0.91). Criterion validity of the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) yielded slight-to-moderate expert-investigator agreement (ICC=0.15-0.46); HCS grades were not discriminant for adenoma detection. Inter- and intra-observer reliabilities were fair-to-moderate (ICC=0.46 (0.37; 0.54) and κ=0.28, respectively). The Chicago Bowel Preparation Scale displayed excellent inter-observer reliability (Pearson's r=0.84 (0.79; 0.88)), yet has been less studied. CONCLUSIONS: To conclude, all the published scales displayed limitations. The BBPS is the most thoroughly validated scale and should be used in a clinical setting. Between-scale comparisons for repeat colonoscopy time interval, ease, and pertinence of use for auditing are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0170.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207