Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.
Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.
复制标题
波士顿肠制备量表得分提供了足以描述肠清洁度的标准化定义。
DOI:
10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031
复制
发表时间:
2014-08
影响因子:
7.7
通讯作者:
Jacobson BC
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Calderwood AH;Schroy PC 3rd;Lieberman DA;Logan JR;Zurfluh M;Jacobson BC
Establishing a threshold of bowel cleanliness below which colonoscopies should be repeated at accelerated intervals is important, yet there are no standardized definitions for an “adequate” preparation. To determine if Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores could serve as a standard definition of adequacy. Cross-sectional observational analysis of colonoscopy data from 36 adult gastrointestinal endoscopy practices; prospective survey showing 4 standardized colonoscopy videos with varying degrees of bowel cleanliness. The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. Average risk patients attending screening colonoscopy. Recommended follow-up intervals among normal, average risk screening colonoscopies stratified by BBPS scores. We evaluated 2516 normal screening colonoscopies performed by 74 endoscopists. If the BBPS score was ≥2 in all three segments (N=2295), follow-up was recommended in 10 years in 90% of cases. Examinations with total BBPS scores of 3–5 (N= 167) had variable recommendations. 96% of examinations with total BBPS scores of 0–2 (N=26) had recommended follow-up within 1 year. Similar results were noted among 167 participants in a video survey with pre-established BBPS scores. Retrospective study. BBPS scores correlate with endoscopist behavior regarding follow-up intervals for colonoscopy. A total BBPS score ≥ 6 and/or all segment scores ≥ 2 provides a standardized definition of “adequate for 10-year follow-up” whereas total scores ≤2 indicate that a procedure should be repeated within 1 year. Future work should focus on finding consensus for management of examinations with total scores of 3 to 5.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子:
7.7
作者:
Lieberman, David;Nadel, Marion;Winawer, Sidney
通讯作者:
Winawer, Sidney
影响因子:
7.6
作者:
Repici, A.;Cestari, R.;Hassan, C.
通讯作者:
Hassan, C.
影响因子:
3.1
作者:
Chokshi, Reena V.;Hovis, Christine E.;Wang, Jean S.
通讯作者:
Wang, Jean S.
影响因子:
120.7
作者:
Lieberman, David A.;Holub, Jennifer L.;Morris, Cynthia D.
通讯作者:
Morris, Cynthia D.
影响因子:
7.7
作者:
Lieberman, David A.;Faigel, Douglas O.;Logan, Judith R.;Mattek, Nora;Holub, Jennifer;Eisen, Glenn;Morris, Cynthia;Smith, Robert;Nadel, Marion
通讯作者:
Nadel, Marion