Development and validation of a computed assessment of cleansing score for evaluation of quality of small-bowel visualization in capsule endoscopy
submitted 12 August 2017
accepted after revision 25 January 2018
25 May 2018 (online)
Background and study aims An objective and reliable scoring system is needed to assess quality of visualization in small bowel (SB) capsule endoscopy (CE), for both clinical practice and research purposes. The aim of this study was to establish and to validate a SB-computed assessment of cleansing (SB-CAC) score.
Patients and methods Thirty-three SB-CE were selected. A CAC score, defined as the ratio of the red over green pixels (R/G ratio), was calculated for each frame. Intervals were then determined, ranging from the lowest to the highest ratio among the extracted frames. Twelve frames were randomly selected in each of these intervals. Two hundred eighty-eight frames were shuffled and analyzed twice in random order by two experienced CE readers who were blinded to the CAC scores. Once an “adequately cleansed” or “inadequately cleansed” qualification was allotted to every still frame, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was created. In case of discrepancy between the two readers, the still frames were excluded. A second dataset of 288 different SB still frames was generated and read twice in random order by two other experienced SB-CE readers, using the same methodology.
Results A SB-CAC score threshold of 1.6 best achieved discrimination of adequately from inadequately cleansed frames, with a sensitivity of 92.7 % (95 %CI [89.7 – 95.8]) and a specificity of 92.9 % (95 %CI [89.9 – 95.9]). This threshold was validated using the second dataset, yielding the following performances: sensitivity 91.3 % (95 %CI [87.9 – 94.6]), specificity 94.7 % (95 %CI [92.1 – 97.3]).
Conclusion An SB-CAC score of 1.6 has the highest sensitivity and specificity to discriminate “adequately cleansed” from “inadequately cleansed” SB-CE still frames. This constitutes an objective, reproducible, reliable, and automated cleansing score for SB-CE.
- 1 Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G. et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 620-625
- 2 Lieberman D, Nadel M, Smith RA. et al. Standardized colonoscopy reporting and data system: report of the Quality Assurance Task Group of the National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 757-766
- 3 Brotz C, Nandi N, Conn M. et al. A validation study of 3 grading systems to evaluate small-bowel cleansing for wireless capsule endoscopy: a quantitative index, a qualitative evaluation, and an overall adequacy assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 262-270
- 4 Goyal J, Goel A, McGwin G. et al. Analysis of a grading system to assess the quality of small-bowel preparation for capsule endoscopy: in search of the Holy Grail. Endosc Int Open 2014; 2: E183-E186
- 5 Van Weyenberg SJB, De Leest HTJI, Mulder CJJ. Description of a novel grading system to assess the quality of bowel preparation in video capsule endoscopy. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 406-411
- 6 van Tuyl SA, den Ouden H, Stolk MF. et al. Optimal preparation for video capsule endoscopy: a prospective, randomized, single-blind study. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 1037-1040
- 7 Dai N, Gubler C, Hengstler P. et al. Improved capsule endoscopy after bowel preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 28-31
- 8 Ben-Soussan E, Savoye G, Antonietti M. et al. Is a 2-liter PEG preparation useful before capsule endoscopy?. J Clin Gastroenterol 2005; 39: 381-384
- 9 Rees CJ, Bevan R, Zimmermann-Fraedrich K. et al. Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators. Gut 2016; 12: 2045-2060
- 10 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
- 11 Park SC, Keum B, Hyun JJ. et al. A novel cleansing score system for capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 875-880