The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Endoscopic assessment of the oesophageal features of eosinophilic oesophagitis: validation of a novel classification and grading system
Abstract
Objective: Abnormalities are commonly identified during endoscopy in eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE). There is no standardised classification to describe these features. This study aimed to evaluate the interobserver agreement of a grading system for the oesophageal features of EoE. Method: The proposed system incorporated the grading of four major oesophageal features (rings, furrows, exudates, oedema) and the presence of additional features of narrow calibre oesophagus, feline oesophagus, stricture and crepe paper oesophagus. Endoscopic videos from 25 patients with EoE and controls were reviewed by 21 gastroenterologists. Interobserver agreement was assessed by estimating multi-rater κ and the proportion of pairwise agreement. Results: Using the original grading system, agreement for rings, furrows and exudates was moderate (κ=0.38–0.46, 56–65% agreement) but poor for oedema (κ=0.23, 51% agreement). Identification of narrow calibre oesophagus had fair agreement (κ=0.30, 74% agreement) while feline oesophagus had poor agreement (κ=0.15, 68% agreement). After collapsing the severity grading for oedema and furrows and eliminating poorly performing features of feline oesophagus and narrow calibre oesophagus, a modified grading system demonstrated good agreement for the four major features of EoE (κ=0.40–0.54, 71–81% agreement) and additional features of stricture and crepe paper oesophagus (κ=0.52 and 0.58, 79% and 92% agreement). Conclusions: The proposed system for endoscopically-identified oesophageal features of EoE defines common nomenclature and severity scores for the assessment of EoE disease activity. The system has good interobserver agreement among practising and academic gastroenterologists.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Misinterpretation and misuse of the kappa statistic
MACLURE, M., & WILLETT, W. C. (1987) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/126.2.161 · Cited by 808
Cited by
Dellon, E. S., Liacouras, C. A., Molina-Infante, J., Furuta, G. T., Spergel, J. M., Zevit, N., Spechler, S. J., Attwood, S. E., Straumann, A., Aceves, S. S., et al. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.009 · Cited by 1,162
Self-citationFood allergy: A practice parameter update—2014
Sampson, H. A., Aceves, S., Bock, S. A., James, J., Jones, S., Lang, D., Nadeau, K., Nowak-Wegrzyn, A., Oppenheimer, J., Perry, T. T., et al. (2014) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2014.05.013 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- Hirano, I., Moy, N., Heckman, M. G., Thomas, C. S., Gonsalves, N., & Achem, S. R.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012-05-22
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 489-495
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2164161262
- Cited by
- 945
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 33.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Endoscopic assessment of the oesophageal features of eosinophilic oesophagitis: validation of a novel classification and grading system. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301817
- The paper
- Hirano, I., Moy, N., Heckman, M. G., Thomas, C. S., Gonsalves, N., & Achem, S. R. (2013). Endoscopic assessment of the oesophageal features of eosinophilic oesophagitis: validation of a novel classification and grading system. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301817
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.