Disagreement Among Gastroenterologists Using the Mayo and Rutgeerts Endoscopic Scores. Issue 2 (18th January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fernandes, Samuel Raimundo; Pinto, João Sebastião Lopes Dias; Marques da Costa, Pedro; Correia, Luís
• Is Part Of: Inflammatory bowel diseases. Volume 24:Issue 2(2018)
• Page Start: 254
• Page End: 260
• Publication Date: 2018-01-18
• Subjects: endoscopy -- Mayo endoscopic subscore -- Rutgeerts score -- inter-rater variability; Inflammatory bowel diseases -- Periodicals; Colitis, Ulcerative -- Periodicals; Crohn Disease -- Periodicals; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.344
• DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izx066
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1078-0998

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Endoscopy is routinely performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease to evaluate disease severity and guide important clinical decisions. However, variability in the interpretation of endoscopic findings can significantly impact patient management. Methods: Fifty-eight gastroenterologists were invited to participate in an online survey including pictures and video recordings of colonoscopies performed in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). Participants were asked to rate the colorectal mucosa in patients with UC using the Mayo endoscopic subscore (MES), and the neo-terminal ileum and anastomosis in operated patients with CD using the Rutgeerts score (RS). Overall interrater agreement (IRA) and for several key end points was assessed using Krippendorff's alpha test. Results: The IRAs for the MES and RS were 0.47 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.54) and 0.33 (95% CI, 0.28–0.38). The IRAs for UC mucosal healing (MES ≤ 1) and complete mucosal healing (MES = 0) were 0.57 (95% CI, 0.40–0.72) and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.73–1) and for CD postoperative recurrence (RS ≥ i2), and IRAs for severe postoperative recurrence (RS ≥ 3) were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24–0.62) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.36–0.71), respectively. Unexpectedly, although clinical information significantly influenced the IRA, participant expertise and consultation of scores did not produce significant changes in the IRA. Conclusions: A high rate of disagreement in endoscopic scoring was found in this study, even among experienced physicians. The variability in the assessment of mucosal healing and postoperative recurrence may translate into relevant differences in patient management.