三级医院人群结肠镜检查中肠准备不足预测模型的验证与应用

IF 1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1159/000520905
Edgar Afecto, Ana Ponte, Sónia Fernandes, Catarina Gomes, João Paulo Correia, João Carvalho
{"title":"三级医院人群结肠镜检查中肠准备不足预测模型的验证与应用","authors":"Edgar Afecto,&nbsp;Ana Ponte,&nbsp;Sónia Fernandes,&nbsp;Catarina Gomes,&nbsp;João Paulo Correia,&nbsp;João Carvalho","doi":"10.1159/000520905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (<i>p</i> < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51838,"journal":{"name":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7f/b0/pjg-0030-0134.PMC10050840.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation and Application of Predictive Models for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopies in a Tertiary Hospital Population.\",\"authors\":\"Edgar Afecto,&nbsp;Ana Ponte,&nbsp;Sónia Fernandes,&nbsp;Catarina Gomes,&nbsp;João Paulo Correia,&nbsp;João Carvalho\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000520905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (<i>p</i> < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/7f/b0/pjg-0030-0134.PMC10050840.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000520905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000520905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:肠道准备是结肠镜检查的主要质量标准。用于识别准备不足患者的模型尚未在外部队列中得到验证。我们的目标是验证这些模型并确定它们的适用性。方法:回顾性纳入2019年4月至11月的结肠镜检查。波士顿肠准备量表每节段≥2被认为是足够的。排除资料不足、结肠镜检查不完整和全结肠。对两种模型进行检验:模型1(三环类抗抑郁药物、阿片类药物、糖尿病、便秘、腹部手术、既往准备不足、住院情况、美国麻醉学会[ASA]评分≥3);模式2(合并症、三环类抗抑郁药物、便秘和腹部手术)。结果:纳入514例患者(63%男性;年龄(61.7±15.6岁),有充分准备者441岁。主要指征为炎症性肠病(26.1%)和内镜治疗(24.9%)。既往手术(36.2%)和ASA评分≥3(23.7%)是最常见的合并症。ASA评分≥3是本研究中唯一确定的准备不足的预测因子(p < 0.001, OR 3.28)。模型1的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)分别为60.3、64.2、21.8和90.7%。模型2的敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为57.5、67.4、22.6和90.5%。模型1的ROC曲线AUC为0.62,模型2为0.62,ASA评分为0.65。结论:虽然这两种模型都能准确预测肠道准备是否充分,但在预测肠道准备是否充分方面仍然不可靠,因此,需要新的模型或对现有模型进行进一步优化。利用ASA评分可能是三级医院人群肠道准备不足风险的适当近似值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Validation and Application of Predictive Models for Inadequate Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopies in a Tertiary Hospital Population.

Background: Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability.

Methods: Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery).

Results: We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (p < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score.

Conclusions: Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.

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
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
62
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The ''GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology'' (formerly Jornal Português de Gastrenterologia), founded in 1994, is the official publication of Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia (Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology), Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy) and Associação Portuguesa para o Estudo do Fígado (Portuguese Association for the Study of the Liver). The journal publishes clinical and basic research articles on Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy, Hepatology and related topics. Review articles, clinical case studies, images, letters to the editor and other articles such as recommendations or papers on gastroenterology clinical practice are also considered. Only articles written in English are accepted.
期刊最新文献
Portuguese Pancreatic Club Perspectives on Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Diagnosis and Staging, Associated Genetic Syndromes and Particularities of Their Clinical Approach. Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding after Gynecological Surgery: An Atypical Endoscopic Diagnosis. Portuguese Pancreatic Club Perspectives on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided and Surgical Treatment of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Schwannoma of Common Bile Duct: A Clinico-Radiologic Diagnostic Quagmire – A Case Report Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Using Band Ligation of a Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumor
×
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