Reliability and initial validation of the ulcerative colitis endoscopic index of severity.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We studied the reliability of the previously described Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) and validated it with an independent cohort of investigators. METHODS: We created a new library of 57 videos of flexible sigmoidoscopy and stratified them based on disease severity. Twenty-five investigators were each randomly assigned to assess 28 videos (which included 4 duplicates to assess intraobserver reliability). Investigators were blinded to clinical details except for 2 of 4 duplicated videos (to assess the impact of knowledge of symptoms on assessment). Three descriptors ("vascular pattern", "bleeding", and "erosions and ulcers") comprising the UCEIS were scored with a visual analogue scale (VAS) to assess overall severity. Intrainvestigator and interinvestigator agreement was characterized by κ statistical analysis; reliability ratios were used to compare VAS and UCEIS scores. RESULTS: There was a high level of correlation between UCEIS scores and overall assessment of severity (correlation coefficient, 0.93). Internal consistency (Cronbach α analysis) was 0.86. Intrainvestigator and interinvestigator reliability ratios for UCEIS scores were 0.96 and 0.88, respectively. Intrainvestigator agreement in determination of the UCEIS score was good (κ = 0.72), with individual descriptors ranging from a κ of 0.47 (for bleeding) to 0.87 (for vascular pattern). Interinvestigator agreement in determination of UCEIS scores was moderate (κ = 0.50), with descriptors ranging from a κ of 0.48 (for bleeding) to 0.54 (for vascular pattern). Intrainvestigator variability in determining UCEIS scores did not change appreciably when a video was presented with clinical details. CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS and its components show satisfactory intrainvestigator and interinvestigator reliability. Among investigators, the UCEIS accounted for a median of 86% of the variability in evaluation of overall severity on the VAS when assessing the endoscopic severity of UC and was unaffected by knowledge of clinical details.

Developing an instrument to assess the endoscopic severity of ulcerative colitis: the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS).

BACKGROUND: Variability in endoscopic assessment necessitates rigorous investigation of descriptors for scoring severity of ulcerative colitis (UC). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation in the overall endoscopic assessment of severity, the intra- and interindividual variation of descriptive terms and to create an Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity which could be validated. DESIGN: A two-phase study used a library of 670 video sigmoidoscopies from patients with Mayo Clinic scores 0-11, supplemented by 10 videos from five people without UC and five hospitalised patients with acute severe UC. In phase 1, each of 10 investigators viewed 16/24 videos to assess agreement on the Baron score with a central reader and agreed definitions of 10 endoscopic descriptors. In phase 2, each of 30 different investigators rated 25/60 different videos for the descriptors and assessed overall severity on a 0-100 visual analogue scale. κ Statistics tested inter- and intraobserver variability for each descriptor. A general linear mixed regression model based on logit link and ß distribution of variance was used to predict overall endoscopic severity from descriptors. RESULTS: There was 76% agreement for 'severe', but 27% agreement for 'normal' appearances between phase I investigators and the central reader. In phase 2, weighted κ values ranged from 0.34 to 0.65 and 0.30 to 0.45 within and between observers for the 10 descriptors. The final model incorporated vascular pattern, (normal/patchy/complete obliteration) bleeding (none/mucosal/luminal mild/luminal moderate or severe), erosions and ulcers (none/erosions/superficial/deep), each with precise definitions, which explained 90% of the variance (pR(2), Akaike Information Criterion) in the overall assessment of endoscopic severity, predictions varying from 4 to 93 on a 100-point scale (from normal to worst endoscopic severity). CONCLUSION: The Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity accurately predicts overall assessment of endoscopic severity of UC. Validity and responsiveness need further testing before it can be applied as an outcome measure in clinical trials or clinical practice.

The Impact of Clinical Information on the Assessment of Endoscopic Activity: Characteristics of the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Of Severity [UCEIS].

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To determine whether clinical information influences endoscopic scoring by central readers using the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity [UCEIS; comprising 'vascular pattern', 'bleeding', 'erosions and ulcers']. METHODS: Forty central readers performed 28 evaluations, including 2 repeats, from a library of 44 video sigmoidoscopies stratified by Mayo Clinic Score. Following training, readers were randomised to scoring with ['unblinded', n = 20, including 4 control videos with misleading information] or without ['blinded', n 20] clinical information. A total of 21 virtual Central Reader Groups [CRGs], of three blinded readers, were created. Agreement criteria were pre-specified. Kappa [κ] statistics quantified intra- and inter-reader variability. RESULTS: Mean UCEIS scores did not differ between blinded and unblinded readers for any of the 40 main videos. UCEIS standard deviations [SD] were similar [median blinded 0.94, unblinded 0.93; p = 0.97]. Correlation between UCEIS and visual analogue scale [VAS] assessment of overall severity was high [r blinded = 0.90, unblinded = 0.93; p = 0.02]. Scores for control videos were similar [UCEIS: p ≥ 0.55; VAS: p ≥ 0.07]. Intra- [κ 0.47-0.74] and inter-reader [κ 0.40-0.53] variability for items and full UCEIS was 'moderate'-to-'substantial', with no significant differences except for intra-reader variability for erosions and ulcers [κ blinded: 0.47 vs unblinded: 0.74; p 0.047]. The SD of CRGs was lower than for individual central readers [0.54 vs 0.95; p < 0.001]. Correlation between blinded UCEIS and patient-reported symptoms was high [stool frequency: 0.76; rectal bleeding: 0.82; both: 0.81]. CONCLUSIONS: The UCEIS is minimally affected by knowledge of clinical details, strongly correlates with patient-reported symptoms, and is a suitable instrument for trials. CRGs performed better than individuals.