PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a27522591
DOI: 10.1055/a-2752-2591
Original article

Is size, morphology, site, and access scoring system consistent between endoscopists? Interobserver and intraobserver polyp assessment study

Autor*innen

  • Mo Thoufeeq‡

    1   Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN7318)

  • Ahmad Thaika‡

    2   FY2, Walsall Manor Hospital, Walsall, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN156766)

  • Shyam Moudhgalya

    3   Foundation Programme, Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN5983)

  • Pradeep Mundre

    4   Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN1906)

  • Vasitha Abeysuriya

    5   Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka (Ringgold ID: RIN92955)

  • Nilanga Nishad

    1   Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Ringgold ID: RIN7318)
Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims

This study aimed to evaluate interobserver and intraobserver agreement in Size/Morphology/Site/Access (SMSA) scoring among practicing endoscopists with varying levels of experience.

Patients and methods

A total of 102 fully independent endoscopists participated in the study. Ten short video clips of colonic polyps of varying size and complexity were recorded using Olympus 290 colonoscopes and included white light, near focus, narrow band imaging, and chromoendoscopy where applicable. These videos were embedded in an online questionnaire. Endoscopists were asked to assign SMSA scores based on three variables—size, morphology, and access—with the site provided for standardization. A subgroup of five participants repeated the assessment after 2 to 3 weeks to evaluate intraobserver consistency. Data were analyzed using Fleiss’ kappa via SPSS (v26), and Kappa interpretation followed the Landis and Koch classification.

Results

Overall interobserver agreement for SMSA level across all participants was fair (κ = 0.346). Among individual parameters, morphology had the highest agreement (κ = 0.505, moderate), followed by access (κ = 0.408, moderate) and size (κ = 0.241, fair). Subgroup analysis of experienced endoscopists (> 1000 lifetime colonoscopies) yielded slightly improved kappa values, with morphology still demonstrating the highest consistency. Intraobserver agreement showed moderate to almost perfect reliability for size (κ = 0.444 to 1.000) and moderate to substantial agreement for SMSA level (κ = 0.429 to 0.846).

Conclusions

Morphology was the most consistently scored parameter. Although the SMSA tool remains valuable, efforts such as standardized training and simplification of variable categories may be warranted to improve interobserver consistency and enhance clinical-utility.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - Endoscopy Upper GI Tract - Diagnosis and imaging (inc chromoendoscopy, NBI, iSCAN, FICE, CLE) - Quality and logistical aspects - Performance and complications


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 13. Mai 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 22. Oktober 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. Dezember 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Mo Thoufeeq, Ahmad Thaika, Shyam Moudhgalya, Pradeep Mundre, Vasitha Abeysuriya, Nilanga Nishad. Is size, morphology, site, and access scoring system consistent between endoscopists? Interobserver and intraobserver polyp assessment study. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a27522591.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2752-2591
 

  • References

  • 1 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Rutter MD, Chattree A, Barbour JA. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Gut 2015; 64: 1847-1873
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sansone S, Ragunath K, Bianco MA. et al. Clinical utility of the SMSA grading tool for the management of colonic neoplastic lesions. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 518-522
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Gupta S, Miskovic D, Bhandari P. et al. The ‘SMSA’ scoring system for determining the complexity of a polyp. Gut 2011; 60: A129
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Siau K, Pelitari S, Green S. et al. JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy. Frontline Gastroenterol 2023; 13: 201-221
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Sidhu M, Tate DJ, Desomer L. The size, morphology, site, and access score predicts critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 684-692
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): ESGE Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Parker J, Gupta S, Shenbagaraj L. et al. Outcomes of complex colorectal polyps managed by multi-disciplinary team strategies—a multi-centre observational study. Int J Colorectal Dis 2023; 38: 28
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Dattani M, Crane S, Battersby NJ. et al. Variations in the management of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer: results from a multicentre observational study of 383 patients. Colorectal Dis 2018; 20: 1088-1096
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Lim D, Jang DK, Lee SH. et al. Deep learning in colorectal polyp classification: current status and future perspectives. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29: 1512-1525
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Urban G, Tripathi P, Alkayali T. et al. Deep learning localizes and identifies polyps in real time with 96% accuracy in screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 1069-78.e8
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Skouras T, Bond A, Gaglia A. et al. Outcomes and adverse factors for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps in elderly patients. Frontline Gastroenterol 2020; 12: 95-101
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Lim SH, Levenick JM, Mathew A. et al. Endoscopic management of large (≥2 cm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: impact of polyp morphology on outcomes. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 3572-3583
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Thrumurthy S, Htet HMT, Denesh D. et al. High burden of polyp mischaracterisation in tertiary centre referrals for endoscopic resection may be alleviated by telestration. Frontline Gastroenterol 2023; 14: 32-37
    Suche in Google Scholar