布里斯托粪便量表与儿童修订版的比较:提供者与儿童的使用情况:布里斯托粪便量表与 mBSFS-C。

IF 8 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY American Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.14309/ajg.0000000000003218
James Orozco, Mariella M Self, Sara Grisales, Bruno P Chumpitazi, Danita I Czyzewski, Meagan S McMullen, Rebecca Berger, Clarissa A Gonzalez, Amber L Cunha, Robert J Shulman
{"title":"布里斯托粪便量表与儿童修订版的比较:提供者与儿童的使用情况:布里斯托粪便量表与 mBSFS-C。","authors":"James Orozco, Mariella M Self, Sara Grisales, Bruno P Chumpitazi, Danita I Czyzewski, Meagan S McMullen, Rebecca Berger, Clarissa A Gonzalez, Amber L Cunha, Robert J Shulman","doi":"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate report of stool form is essential to diagnosis and assessment of treatment response. The modified Bristol Stool Form Scale for Children ( mBSFS-C ) classifies stool form into 5 types and is reliable and valid. However, a direct comparison of provider's and children's ratings using the mBSFS-C vs the traditional Bristol Stool Form Scale ( BSFS ) that uses 7 stool form types has not been done.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pediatric gastroenterology providers and children rated the same 35 stool photos, reflecting diverse stool forms, using both scales. The order of photo presentation and scale use were randomized. For each photo, the most common rating (modal rating) was calculated for both scales and study samples. The percentage of child and provider ratings matching their respective modal ratings was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one providers (21 faculty, 11 fellows, 3 nurse practitioners) and 200 children (mean age 12 ± 3 years) participated. No order effect (mBSFS-C vs BSFS used first) was observed. Of 1225 provider ratings using the mBSFS-C, 90.0% agreed with the provider's modal ratings vs 77.8% using the BSFS. Of 7,000 child ratings using the mBSFS-C, 84.6% agreed with the children's modal ratings vs 71.8% using the BSFS. Using providers' modal ratings as the reference, all mBSFS-C photograph modal ratings matched between children and providers (35/35 photos) whereas only 86% (30/35 photos) matched with the BSFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>1) The mBSFS-C showed greater modal agreement among both providers and children compared to the BSFS; 2) Provider-child concordance was greater with the mBSFS-C than with the BSFS. Validation in other regions/populations is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7608,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Bristol Stool Scale and modified version for children: Use by providers vs children: BSFS vs mBSFS-C.\",\"authors\":\"James Orozco, Mariella M Self, Sara Grisales, Bruno P Chumpitazi, Danita I Czyzewski, Meagan S McMullen, Rebecca Berger, Clarissa A Gonzalez, Amber L Cunha, Robert J Shulman\",\"doi\":\"10.14309/ajg.0000000000003218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate report of stool form is essential to diagnosis and assessment of treatment response. The modified Bristol Stool Form Scale for Children ( mBSFS-C ) classifies stool form into 5 types and is reliable and valid. However, a direct comparison of provider's and children's ratings using the mBSFS-C vs the traditional Bristol Stool Form Scale ( BSFS ) that uses 7 stool form types has not been done.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pediatric gastroenterology providers and children rated the same 35 stool photos, reflecting diverse stool forms, using both scales. The order of photo presentation and scale use were randomized. For each photo, the most common rating (modal rating) was calculated for both scales and study samples. The percentage of child and provider ratings matching their respective modal ratings was determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one providers (21 faculty, 11 fellows, 3 nurse practitioners) and 200 children (mean age 12 ± 3 years) participated. No order effect (mBSFS-C vs BSFS used first) was observed. Of 1225 provider ratings using the mBSFS-C, 90.0% agreed with the provider's modal ratings vs 77.8% using the BSFS. Of 7,000 child ratings using the mBSFS-C, 84.6% agreed with the children's modal ratings vs 71.8% using the BSFS. Using providers' modal ratings as the reference, all mBSFS-C photograph modal ratings matched between children and providers (35/35 photos) whereas only 86% (30/35 photos) matched with the BSFS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>1) The mBSFS-C showed greater modal agreement among both providers and children compared to the BSFS; 2) Provider-child concordance was greater with the mBSFS-C than with the BSFS. Validation in other regions/populations is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003218\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000003218","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:准确报告粪便形态对诊断和评估治疗反应至关重要。改良版儿童布里斯托粪便形态量表(mBSFS-C)将粪便形态分为 5 种类型,既可靠又有效。然而,尚未对使用 mBSFS-C 与使用 7 种粪便形态的传统布里斯托粪便形态量表(BSFS)进行直接比较:方法:儿科胃肠病医生和儿童使用两种量表对反映不同粪便形态的 35 张相同粪便照片进行评分。照片展示顺序和量表使用顺序均为随机。针对每张照片,计算两种量表和研究样本中最常见的评分(模态评分)。结果:21 名医疗服务提供者(21 名教师、11 名研究员、3 名执业护士)和 200 名儿童(平均年龄为 12 ± 3 岁)参加了研究。没有观察到顺序效应(首先使用 mBSFS-C 与 BSFS)。在使用 mBSFS-C 进行的 1225 次提供者评分中,90.0% 与提供者的模态评分一致,而使用 BSFS 进行的评分为 77.8%。在使用 mBSFS-C 进行的 7000 次儿童评分中,84.6% 的儿童同意提供者的模式评分,而使用 BSFS 进行的评分为 71.8%。以提供者的模态评分作为参考,所有 mBSFS-C 照片的模态评分都与儿童和提供者的评分相吻合(35/35 张照片),而只有 86%(30/35 张照片)与 BSFS 相吻合:1)与 BSFS 相比,mBSFS-C 在提供者和儿童之间显示出更大的模式一致性;2)与 BSFS 相比,mBSFS-C 在提供者和儿童之间显示出更大的一致性。需要在其他地区/人群中进行验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparison of the Bristol Stool Scale and modified version for children: Use by providers vs children: BSFS vs mBSFS-C.

Introduction: Accurate report of stool form is essential to diagnosis and assessment of treatment response. The modified Bristol Stool Form Scale for Children ( mBSFS-C ) classifies stool form into 5 types and is reliable and valid. However, a direct comparison of provider's and children's ratings using the mBSFS-C vs the traditional Bristol Stool Form Scale ( BSFS ) that uses 7 stool form types has not been done.

Methods: Pediatric gastroenterology providers and children rated the same 35 stool photos, reflecting diverse stool forms, using both scales. The order of photo presentation and scale use were randomized. For each photo, the most common rating (modal rating) was calculated for both scales and study samples. The percentage of child and provider ratings matching their respective modal ratings was determined.

Results: Twenty-one providers (21 faculty, 11 fellows, 3 nurse practitioners) and 200 children (mean age 12 ± 3 years) participated. No order effect (mBSFS-C vs BSFS used first) was observed. Of 1225 provider ratings using the mBSFS-C, 90.0% agreed with the provider's modal ratings vs 77.8% using the BSFS. Of 7,000 child ratings using the mBSFS-C, 84.6% agreed with the children's modal ratings vs 71.8% using the BSFS. Using providers' modal ratings as the reference, all mBSFS-C photograph modal ratings matched between children and providers (35/35 photos) whereas only 86% (30/35 photos) matched with the BSFS.

Conclusions: 1) The mBSFS-C showed greater modal agreement among both providers and children compared to the BSFS; 2) Provider-child concordance was greater with the mBSFS-C than with the BSFS. Validation in other regions/populations is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Gastroenterology
American Journal of Gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
11.40
自引率
5.10%
发文量
458
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) stands as the foremost clinical journal in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology. AJG offers practical and professional support to clinicians addressing the most prevalent gastroenterological disorders in patients.
期刊最新文献
Global Prevalence and Clinical Manifestations of Celiac Disease Among First-Degree Relatives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Judicious Use of Antibiotics in Liver Transplant Recipients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Gastritis: Pathophysiology and Clinical Management. Older Adults with Celiac Disease Are At Increased Risk of Frailty:A Nationwide Cohort Study. A PRAGMATIC MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR METABOLIC DYSFUNCTION ASSOCIATED STEATOSIS AND STEATOHEPATITIS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1