Download PDF
Endoscopy 2022; 54(01): 45-51
DOI: 10.1055/a-1331-4325
Original article

The Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS): a two-phase evaluation study

Filipe Taveira 
 1   Department of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
,
Cesare Hassan
 2   Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
,
Michal F. Kaminski
 3   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 4   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
 5   Department of Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 6   Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Thierry Ponchon
 7   Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
,
Robert Benamouzig
 8   Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Avicenne (APHP), Bobigny, France
,
Marek Bugajski
 3   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 4   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
,
Flore de Castelbajac
 8   Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Avicenne (APHP), Bobigny, France
,
Paola Cesaro
 9   Digestive Endoscopy Unit and Gastroenterology, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
,
Hasnae Chergui
 8   Service de Gastroentérologie, Hôpital Avicenne (APHP), Bobigny, France
,
Loredana Goran
10   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, ‘Carol Davila’ University Bucharest, Romania
,
Leonardo Minelli Grazioli
 9   Digestive Endoscopy Unit and Gastroenterology, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
,
Martin Janičko
11   2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
,
Wladyslaw Januszewicz
 3   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
 4   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
,
Laura Lamonaca
12   Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center – IRCCS –, Rozzano, Lombardia, Italy
,
Jamila Lenz
 7   Department of Hepatogastroenterology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
,
Lucian Negreanu
10   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, ‘Carol Davila’ University Bucharest, Romania
,
Alessandro Repici
12   Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center – IRCCS –, Rozzano, Lombardia, Italy
,
Cristiano Spada
 9   Digestive Endoscopy Unit and Gastroenterology, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy
13   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
,
Marco Spadaccini
12   Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center – IRCCS –, Rozzano, Lombardia, Italy
,
Monica State
10   Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, ‘Carol Davila’ University Bucharest, Romania
,
Jakub Szlak
 3   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland
,
Eduard Veseliny
11   2nd Department of Internal Medicine, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
,
Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
14   Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal
15   Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Portugal
,
Miguel Areia 
 1   Department of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
14   Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, Porto, Portugal
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background To date, no scale has been validated to assess bubbles associated with bowel preparation. This study aimed to develop and assess the reliability of a novel scale – the Colon Endoscopic Bubble Scale (CEBuS).

Methods This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study with two online evaluation phases of 45 randomly distributed still colonoscopy images (15 per scale grade). Observers assessed images twice, 2 weeks apart, using CEBuS (CEBuS-0 – no or minimal bubbles, covering < 5 % of the surface; CEBuS-1 – bubbles covering 5 %–50 %; CEBuS-2 – bubbles covering > 50 %) and reporting the clinical action (do nothing; wash with water; wash with simethicone).

Results CEBuS provided high levels of agreement both in evaluation Phase 1 (4 experts) and Phase 2 (6 experts and 13 non-experts), with almost perfect intraobserver reliability: kappa 0.82 (95 % confidence interval 0.75–0.88) and 0.86 (0.85–0.88); interobserver agreement – intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.83 (0.73–0.89) and 0.90 (0.86–0.94). Previous endoscopic experience had no influence on agreement among experts vs. non-experts: kappa 0.86 (0.80–0.91) vs. 0.87 (0.84–0.89) and ICC 0.91 (0.87–0.94) vs. 0.90 (0.86–0.94), respectively. Interobserver agreement on clinical action was ICC 0.63 (0.43–0.78) in Phase 1 and 0.77 (0.68–0.84) in Phase 2. Absolute agreement on clinical action per scale grade was 85 % (82–88) for CEBuS-0, 21 % (16–26) for CEBuS-1, and 74 % (70–78) for CEBuS-2.

Conclusion CEBuS proved to be a reliable instrument to standardize the evaluation of colonic bubbles during colonoscopy. Assessment in daily practice is warranted.



Publication History

Received: 22 May 2020

Accepted after revision: 07 December 2020

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 December 2020

Article published online:
12 February 2021

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M. et al. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 501-506
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Yoo IK, Jeen YT, Kang SH. et al. Improving of bowel cleansing effect for polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid using simethicone: a randomized controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e4163
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Matro R, Tupchong K, Daskalakis C. et al. The effect on colon visualization during colonoscopy of the addition of simethicone to polyethylene glycol-electrolyte solution: a randomized single-blind study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2012; 3: e26
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Pan P, Zhao SB, Li BH. et al. Effect of supplemental simethicone for bowel preparation on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 314-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F. et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775-794
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686-692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Jolicoeur R. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH. et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346-352
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Spada C, Cesaro P, Bazzoli F. et al. Evaluation of Clensia(, a new low-volume PEG bowel preparation in colonoscopy: multicentre randomized controlled trial versus 4L PEG. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 651-656
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Repici A, Cestari R, Annese V. et al. Randomised clinical trial: low-volume bowel preparation for colonoscopy – a comparison between two different PEG-based formulations. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012; 36: 717-724
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Guo R, Wang YJ, Liu M. et al. The effect of quality of segmental bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate. BMC Gastroenterol 2019; 19: 119
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Zhang S, Zheng D, Wang J. et al. Simethicone improves bowel cleansing with low-volume polyethylene glycol: a multicenter randomized trial. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 412-422
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rishi M, Kaur J, Ulanja M. et al. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial evaluating simethicone pretreatment with bowel preparation during colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11: 413-423
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Moraveji S, Casner N, Bashashati M. et al. The role of oral simethicone on the adenoma detection rate and other quality indicators of screening colonoscopy: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 141-149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Hripcsak G, Heitjan DF. Measuring agreement in medical informatics reliability studies. J Biomed Informatics 2002; 35: 99-110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Fleiss JL, Cohen J. The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educ Psychol Meas 2016; 33: 613-619
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Yeh JH, Hsu MH, Tseng CM. et al. The benefit of adding oral simethicone in bowel preparation regimen for the detection of colon adenoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 830-836
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Moolla M, Dang JT, Shaw A. et al. Simethicone decreases bloating and improves bowel preparation effectiveness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 3899-3909
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Sudduth RH, DeAngelis S, Sherman KE. et al. The effectiveness of simethicone in improving visibility during colonoscopy when given with a sodium phosphate solution: a double-bind randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 42: 413-415
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R. et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – Update 2018. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1205-1234
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Li DF, Luo MH, Du QQ. et al. Efficacy of low-dose versus high-dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35: 1488-1494
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Zhou J, Wu L, Wan X. et al. A novel artificial intelligence system for the assessment of bowel preparation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 428-435 e422
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar