Consistency of faecal scoring using two canine faecal scoring systems

Abstract

Objective To determine the agreement of canine faecal scoring between individuals with different levels of experience using two available faecal scoring systems. Materials and Methods Naturally‐voided, undisturbed bowel movements from 126 dogs were evaluated by veterinarians (n = 3) and members of the lay public (n = 126) within 15 minutes of defecation. Each participant was provided a copy of the Purina and Waltham faecal scoring charts in order to characterise the faeces. Agreement between veterinarians and lay people was assessed with kappa statistics, Bland‐Altman analysis and visualised with Bland‐Altman plots. Results Variable levels of consistency were observed in assessing faecal form among individuals with varying degrees of experience. Fair to substantial agreement existed between individual veterinarians scoring the same bowel movement (kappa statistic ranging from 0.40 to 0.77 on the Purina Scale and 0.54 to 0.61 on the Waltham Scale), while the agreement scores between the veterinarian and the lay public was fair (kappa statistic of 0.38 on the Purina Scale and 0.34 on the Waltham Scale). Disagreement in faecal scores occurred more frequently with lay people versus veterinarians. Clinical Significance The consistency of faecal scoring improved based on the level of experience with the highest agreement consistently noted between veterinarians. In all comparisons, there was inconsistency in faecal scoring which might have implications for veterinarians managing diarrhoeic canine patients. Further studies are needed to better investigate how faecal scoring can be optimised for use in clinical and research settings.

Clinical response in dogs with acute hemorrhagic diarrhea syndrome following randomized probiotic treatment or fecal microbiota transplant

“…This limits assessment in the study population to clinical signs and indirect measures of treatment effect (e.g., fecal scoring). However, fecal scores are repeatable when performed by a single observer ( 54 ). While microbiome evaluation at different time points could help direct adjustments that could impact efficacy (e.g., need for repeated FMT), the use of fecal scores and disease severity scores to define AHDS improvement is consistent with available literature ( 2 , 19 , 22 , 25 ).…”

Faecal microbiome transplantation improves clinical signs of chronic idiopathic large bowel diarrhoea in working dogs

“…They received a copy of the Nestle Purina faecal scoring system chart to aid in faecal scoring. The Nestle Purina faecal scoring system was chosen based on its demonstrated validity and reliability 21 . Faecal scores of 4 or less were considered to be non‐diarrhoeic 27 .…”

“…To evaluate patients, their microbiome and the treatment's effect, proper instruments are required. For this purpose, the canine inflammatory bowel disease index (CIBDAI) has been frequently used, 19,20 as has the Nestle Purina faecal scoring system, which has been validated for use in dogs 21 …”

“…For this purpose, the canine inflammatory bowel disease index (CIBDAI) has been frequently used, 19,20 as has the Nestle Purina faecal scoring system, which has been validated for use in dogs. 21 This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of FMT in improving faecal scores and reducing CIBDAI scores and frequency of diarrhoea episodes in police working dogs with chronic large bowel diarrhoea compared to psyllium husk. We hypothesise that FMT can produce an effect similar to that of psyllium.…”

Verification of the fCAL turbo immunoturbidimetric assay for measurement of the fecal calprotectin concentration in dogs and cats

“…Feces quality was evaluated prior to fecal extraction using a 5-point fecal scoring system. 6 , 29 , 39 Owners were asked to complete a standard questionnaire including questions about the general health and vaccination and deworming status of the patient, feeding plan, type of diet, activity of the patient, travel abroad, fecal consistency, presence of vomiting, and medication history (including any supplements given) within the last 4 wk.…”