Background and study aims A reliable outcome measure is needed for bowel preparation quality during capsule endoscopy. Currently, no scales are adequately validated. Our objective was to update an existing small bowel preparation score, create a standardized training module, then determine its inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.
Patients and methods Modification to produce standardized scoring of an existing small bowel preparation score was performed followed by development of a training module and validation to create the new Korea-Canada (KODA) score. Twenty readers from a range of backgrounds, including capsule endoscopists, gastroenterology fellows, residents, medical students, and nurses rated bowel cleanliness in 25 capsule videos consisting of 1,233 images, in duplicate 4 weeks apart, after completing the training module. Sequential images selected in 5-minute intervals during small bowel transit were rated on a scale between 0–3 based on the amount of visualized mucosa and the degree of obstruction. Reliability was assessed using estimates of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).
Results Intraclass correlation coefficients for inter-rater (ICC 0.81, 95 % CI 0.70–0.87) and intra-rater (ICC 0.92, 95 % CI 0.87–0.94) reliability were almost perfect among the 20 readers. Inter-rater reliability ranged between 0.72 (95 % CI 0.57–0.81) and 0.89 (95 % CI 0.79–0.93) for nurses and residents, respectively. Intra-rater reliability was greater than 0.90 for all groups except for nurses, which was still almost perfect (ICC 0.86, 95 % CI 0.79–0.90).
Conclusions Almost perfect inter-rater and intra-rater reliability was observed for the KODA score. This simple score could be used for future clinical trials after completion of the training module.
Although the latest version of MIC resulted in faster times-to-cecum within a subgroup of more challenging cases, overall it was no better than CC in terms of patient comfort, sedation requirements and endoscopic procedural metrics, when performed in experienced hands.
Background:
Crohn's disease (CD) frequently recurs after intestinal resection. Azathioprine (AZA) and biological therapies have shown efficacy in preventing postoperative recurrence (POR). Data on POR from Middle Eastern populations is lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of endoscopic POR in a cohort of CD patients who underwent ileocecal resection (ICR), and to assess the effectiveness of AZA and biological therapies in reducing the risk of disease recurrence.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective cohort study on 105 CD patients followed at our center, who underwent ileal resection and were at moderate to high risk for POR. Clinical and laboratory data were collected; the primary endpoint was post ICR endoscopic recurrence at 24 months defined by Rutgeerts' score of i2 or more despite treatment.
Results:
In total, 105 patients with Crohn's disease met our inclusion criteria; 76.2% were in remission and did not have endoscopic POR at 24 months. Further, 41.9% were on biological therapy, and 34.3% were mainly on AZA. Out of the 28.2% who had POR, approximately 15% were on biological therapies. Penetrating phenotype was the only predictive factor for decreasing POR (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04–0.98,
P
= 0.04) as identified in multiple logistic regression analysis.
Conclusions:
The use of biological therapies post-surgery was not superior than AZA in reducing the endoscopic POR for mod- high risk CD patients. Only penetrating behavior of the CD was associated with significantly lower risk of endoscopic recurrence. This finding is worth further investigation in more robust study designs and among larger samples of patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.