The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research
Open accessAbstract
Background Few bowel preparation rating scales have been validated. Most were intended for comparing oral purgatives, failing to account for washing/suctioning by the endoscopist. This limits their utility in studies of colonoscopy outcomes such as polyp detection rates. Objective To develop a valid and reliable scale for use in colonoscopy outcomes research. Setting Academic medical center. Methods We developed the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS), a 10-point scale assessing bowel preparation after all cleansing maneuvers are completed by the endoscopist. We assessed inter- and intra-observer reliability using video footage of colonoscopies viewed on two separate occasions by 22 clinicians. We then applied the BBPS prospectively during screening colonoscopies, comparing BBPS scores with clinically-meaningful outcomes including polyp detection rates and procedure times. Results The intra-class correlation coefficient (a measure of inter-observer reliability) for BBPS scores was 0.74. The weighted Kappa (a measure of intra-observer reliability) for scores was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.87). During 633 screening colonoscopies, the mean (SD) BBPS score was 6.0 (1.6). Higher BBPS scores (≥5 versus <5) were associated with a higher polyp detection rate (40% vs 24%; p<0.02). BBPS scores were inversely correlated with colonoscope insertion (r = −0.16; p<0.003) and withdrawal (r = −0.23; p<0.001) times. Limitations Single-center study. Conclusions The BBPS is a valid and reliable measure of bowel preparation. It may be well-suited to colonoscopy outcomes research because it reflects the colon's cleanliness during the inspection phase of the procedure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Hapeman, D. E. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,373
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316447303300309 · Cited by 3,354
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, B. M., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.385 · Cited by 1,401
(2016) · Biostatistics in Public Health Using STATA · doi:10.1201/b19547-8 · Cited by 1,037
Froehlich, F., Wietlisbach, V., Gonvers, J.-J., Burnand, B., & Vader, J.-P. (2005) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2 · Cited by 931
Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Petrini, J. L., Baron, T. H., Chak, A., Cohen, J., Deal, S. E., Hoffman, B., Jacobson, B. C., Mergener, K., Petersen, B. T., et al. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x · Cited by 845
Self-citationImpact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia
Harewood, G. C., Sharma, V. K., & de Garmo, P. (2003) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1067/mge.2003.294 · Cited by 724
Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality
Rostom, A., & Jolicoeur, E. (2004) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02875-x · Cited by 451
Cited by
Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial
Repici, A., Badalamenti, M., Maselli, R., Correale, L., Radaelli, F., Rondonotti, E., Ferrara, E., Spadaccini, M., Alkandari, A., Fugazza, A., et al. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062 · Cited by 646
Mori, Y., Kudo, S.-E., Misawa, M., Saito, Y., Ikematsu, H., Hotta, K., Ohtsuka, K., Urushibara, F., Kataoka, S., Ogawa, Y., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0249 · Cited by 509
Wang, P., Liu, X., Berzin, T. M., Glissen Brown, J. R., Liu, P., Zhou, C., Lei, L., Li, L., Guo, Z., Lei, S., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30411-x · Cited by 415
Gong, D., Wu, L., Zhang, J., Mu, G., Shen, L., Liu, J., Wang, Z., Zhou, W., An, P., Huang, X., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30413-3 · Cited by 393
Budzyń, K., Romańczyk, M., Kitala, D., Kołodziej, P., Bugajski, M., Adami, H. O., Blom, J., Buszkiewicz, M., Halvorsen, N., Hassan, C., et al. (2025) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(25)00133-5 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Lai, E. J., Calderwood, A. H., Doros, G., Fix, O. K., & Jacobson, B. C.
- Venue
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-03
- Volume
- 69
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 620-625
- ISSN
- 0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2165188436
- Cited by
- 1,314
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 10.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057
- The paper
- Lai, E. J., Calderwood, A. H., Doros, G., Fix, O. K., & Jacobson, B. C. (2009). The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
