↓ Skip to main content

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011450.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadia Mohammed Vashist, Mark Samaan, Mahmoud H Mosli, Claire E Parker, John K MacDonald, Sigrid A Nelson, GY Zou, Brian G Feagan, Reena Khanna, Vipul Jairath

Abstract

Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is routinely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of ulcerative colitis. The operating properties of the existing endoscopic scoring indices are unclear. A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of endoscopic scoring indices for the evaluation of ulcerative colitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 5 July 2016. We also searched references and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization). Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated endoscopic indices for evaluation of ulcerative colitis disease activity were considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with ulcerative colitis using conventional clinical, radiologic and endoscopic criteria. Two authors independently reviewed the studies identified from the literature search. These authors also independently extracted and recorded data on the number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as reliability (intra-rater and inter-rater), validity (content, construct, criterion), responsiveness and feasibility. Any disagreements regarding study inclusion or data extraction were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. Risk of bias was assessed by determining whether assessors were blinded to clinical information and whether assessors scored the endoscopic index independently. We also assessed the methodological quality of the validation studies using the COSMIN checklist MAIN RESULTS: A total of 23 reports of 20 studies met the pre-defined inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Of the 20 included validation studies, 19 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed, including the Azzolini Classification, Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Chinese Grading System of Ulcerative Colitis, Endoscopic Activty Index, Jeroen Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score, St. Mark's Index, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Serverity (UCCIS), endoscopic component of the Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS), Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score and Watson Grade. The individuals who performed the endoscopic scoring were blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in ten of the included studies, not blinded to clinical and/or histologic information in one of the included studies, and it was unclear whether blinding occurred in the remaining nine included studies. Independent observation was confirmed in four of the included studies, unclear in five of the included studies, and non-applicable (since inter-rater reliability was not assessed) in the remaining eleven included studies. The methodological quality (COSMIN checklist) of most of the included studies was rated as 'good' or 'excellent'. One study that assessed responsiveness was rated as 'fair'. The inter-rater reliability of nine endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Endoscopic Activity Index, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS, UCEIS, Watson Grade was assessed in seven studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.44 to 0.97. The iIntra-rater reliability of seven endoscopic scoring indices including the Baron Score, Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation, Matts Score, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Osada Score, UCCIS and UCEIS was assessed in three studies, with estimates of correlation, ƙ, ranging from 0.41 to 0.86. No studies assessed content validity. Three studies evaluated the criterion validity of three endoscopic scoring indices including the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score, Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade and the UCCIS. These indices were correlated with objective markers of disease activity including albumin, blood leukocytes, C-reactive protein, fecal calprotectin, hemoglobin, mucosal interleukin-8 concentration and platelet count. Correlation estimates ranged from r = -0.19 to 0.83. Thirteen endoscopic scoring indices were tested for construct validity in 13 studies. Estimates of correlation between the endoscopic scoring indices and other measures of disease activity ranged from r = 0.27 to 0.93. Two studies explored the responsiveness of four endoscopic scoring indices including the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS. One study concluded that the Modified Baron Score, Modified Mayo Endoscopic Subscore and UCEIS had similar responsiveness for detecting disease change in ulcerative colitis. The other included study concluded that the UCEIS may be the most accurate endoscopic scoring tool. None of the included studies formally assessed feasibility. While the UCEIS, UCCIS and Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore have undergone extensive validation, none of these instruments have been fully validated and only two studies assessed responsiveness. Further research on the operating properties of these indices is needed given the lack of a fully-validated endoscopic scoring instrument for the evaluation of disease activity in ulcerative colitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 19%
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Unspecified 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Other 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 57%
Unspecified 7 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 5 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2018.
All research outputs
#9,618,999
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,092
of 9,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,414
of 340,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,882 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.