Original articleClinical endoscopyInadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy
Section snippets
Methods
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board with waiver of informed consent at Boston Medical Center in November 2010.
Results
Between 2009 and 2014 there were approximately 98,000 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed within CORI, of which 11,177 (11%) included a BBPS score. Among the examinations with a BBPS score, 365 (3%) had 2 procedures within the database. These 365 average-risk screening C1 examinations were performed by 99 different CORI endoscopists from 29 different practice groups. At least 24 of the endoscopists (24%) completed the on-line BBPS educational program.22 Of these 365 examinations, 335
Discussion
In this study of a consortium of endoscopy units throughout the United States, we found that in cases without baseline polyps detected, colon segments with BBPS segments scores of 0 or 1 compared with those with scores of 2 or 3 had higher rates of polyps on subsequent examinations, and, similarly, in cases without baseline polyps detected, colon segments with BBPS segment scores of 0 or 1 compared with BBPS scores of 2 or 3 had higher rates of advanced polyps on subsequent examination within 3
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Tor D. Tosteson, ScD and Zhongze Li, MS, for their help in portions of the analysis.
References (26)
- et al.
Comparing the effectiveness of competing tests for reducing colorectal cancer mortality: a network meta-analysis
Gastrointest Endosc
(2015) - et al.
Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia
Gastrointest Endosc
(2003) - et al.
Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2012) - et al.
The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy
Gastrointest Endosc
(2011) - et al.
Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale
Gastrointest Endosc
(2010) - et al.
The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research
Gastrointest Endosc
(2009) - et al.
Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2016) - et al.
Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Gastroenterology
(2012) - et al.
Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
Gastroenterology
(2014) - et al.
No polyp left behind: defining bowel preparation adequacy to avoid missed polyps
Gastroenterology
(2016)
Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness
Gastrointest Endosc
Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men
Gastroenterology
Cancer statistics, 2015
CA Cancer J Clin
Cited by (0)
DISCLOSURE: D. Lieberman was the executive director of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative (CORI), a nonprofit organization supporting this study. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by the Oregon Health & Science University and Veterans Affairs Conflict of Interest in Research Committee. D. Lieberman and CORI are supported with funding from National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grants NIDDK U01, DK057132, R33-DK61778-01, and R21-CA131626. A. Calderwood received grant NIH K08 DK090150-05. Funding from NIDDK supports the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of this and all CORI research. In addition, the practice network (CORI) has received support for the infrastructure of the practice-based network from AstraZeneca, Bard International, Pentax USA, ProVation, Endosoft, Given Imaging, and Ethicon. The commercial entities had no involvement in this research. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation, or publication of this manuscript. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Calderwood at [email protected].