评估溃疡性结肠炎疾病活动性的内镜评分指数
Referencias
References to studies included in this review
References to studies excluded from this review
References to studies awaiting assessment
Additional references
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | Consectuive patients were assessed by 4 gastroenterologists using clinical and endoscopic scoring indices Histologic activity was scored by 2 pathologists Fleiss' ƙ was used to evaluate interobserver variation | |
| Data | Number of patients: 91 Number of readers: 4/2 | |
| Comparisons | SCCAI (clinical) Truelove and Richards Index (histologic) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index validated: the Baron Score Study published in abstract form only; methods indicates interobserver variation study, but only construct validity is reported | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | 4 gastroenterologists scored sigmoidoscopy videos of consecutive patients independently (although the rates of interrater agreement were not reported) |
| Methods | 171 gastroenterologists were shown 5 video clips of an endoscopy procedure from a patient with UC All participants rated the video using an iPad system after extensive discussion of scoring modalities | |
| Data | Agreement differed significantly (P < 0.001) after scoring training was conducted for 3/5 video clips | |
| Comparisons | Interrater reliability was measured before training and after training | |
| Outcomes | Interrater reliability (see Table 3) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index validated: Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore Study published in abstract form only | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Each video was blindly reviewed |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Methods | 14 expert gastroenterologists reviewed 13 UC videos (in addition to 10 postoperative and 8 luminal Crohn's disease videos) A subset of 5 of the endoscopic clips were also reviewed by 30 general gastroenterologists without experience performing endoscopic scoring | |
| Data | Expert gastroenterologists: belonged to tertiary referral centres, had previous experience using IBD scores, median duration of practice was 21 years, median number of patients followed was 1750 Non‐expert gastroenterologists: belonged to primary/secondary referral centres, had basic experience in endoscopy but no formal training in scoring instruments (they were briefly introduced to the indices before being asked to score videos) | |
| Comparisons | Interrater reliability for expert gastroenterologists and non‐expert gastroenterologists | |
| Outcomes | Interrater reliability (see Table 3) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: The Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | After every round of video scoring, the raters were permitted to discuss, but not change their scores |
| Methods | 30 second video clips (N = 5) of ulcerative colitis were shown to an audience of experienced (n = 15) and inexperienced (n = 21) endoscopists on a high resolution video projector Both groups were asked to assess eight endoscopic features and the overall mucosal inflammation on the Visual Analogue Scale | |
| Data | The 15 experienced gastroenterologists had performed > 750 endoscopies The 21 inexperienced gastroenterologists had performed < 200 endoscopies | |
| Comparisons | Inter‐observer reliability | |
| Outcomes | See Table 3 | |
| Notes | Endoscopic Scoring Index evaluated: EAI | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | The ratings were performed in the same room based on a projection. It is unclear whether this may have affected scoring |
| Methods | Post‐hoc analysis of data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial in steroid‐refractory moderate to severe UC (NCT00430898) (N = 149) | |
| Data | Clinical and endoscopic assessment of disease activity was performed at baseline, week 4, week 8 Histologic assessed of disease activity was performed as an optional sub study Biopsies were scored by a single blinded pathologist | |
| Comparisons | Riley Score (histopathology) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore Correlation was measured using Spearman's rho Correlation estimate for endoscopic and histologic measures only reported at week 4 | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | It is unclear whether the endoscopist was blinded to clinical information |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (construct validity) |
| Methods | 74 consecutive patients requiring endoscopy were prospectively identified by searching an endoscopy schedule (4 patients did not participate) | |
| Data | Prior to endoscopy, UCDAI scores were calculated After each endoscopy, the endoscopist (15 total) were asked to perform scoring using the St. Mark's Index and UCDAI | |
| Comparisons | UCDAI (clinical) SCCAI (clinical) Seo Index (clinical symptoms, hemoglobin, albumin, erthrocyte sedimentation rate) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: St. Mark's Index Correlation was measured using Spearman's ρ and Pearson's r | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Primary gastroenterologists or endoscopists scored disease activity prior to endoscopy; it is unclear whether the endoscopists were blinded to clinical information when endoscopic assessments were performed |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (construct validity) |
| Methods | 74 patients with moderate to severe UC from 8 institutes | |
| Data | Patients received medical therapy and were evaluated clinically and endoscopically at weeks 2, 4, 8 and post‐treatment | |
| Comparisons | Rachmilewitz Score (clinical) UCDAI (clinical) Lichtiger Index (clinical) Seo Index (clinical) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Baron Score, Rachmilewtiz Endoscopic Score | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (construct validity) |
| Methods | A responsiveness study based on a treatment of known efficacy | |
| Data | 40 patients had colonoscopies performed pre‐ and post‐ treatment | |
| Comparisons | Treatment of known efficacy (tacrolimus) | |
| Outcomes | Responsiveness (see Table 6) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, UCEIS | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (responsiveness) |
| Methods | Two experienced endoscopists scored Baron Scale and Jeroen Classification independently. The correlation and difference between the two indices were assessed using Kendall's coefficient of concordance and Spearman correlations. | |
| Data | Patient characteristics: 80 UC patients Mean age: 41.14 years | |
| Comparisons | 6 endoscopic scoring indices were compared | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring indices evaluated: CGSUC, Truelove and Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score, Baron Score, Modified Baron Score, Jeroen Score, Azzolini Score Both patients with UC and CD were included in this study (80 UC patients, 31 CD patients) | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Two endoscopists were blinded to clinical and histologic findings |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | Two endoscopists evaluated endoscopic findings independently |
| Methods | A prospective pilot study | |
| Data | 58 patients with UC or Crohn's disease in clinical remission | |
| Comparisons | 232 Endoscopic images (4 per patient) graded determined using confocal endomicroscopy by two blinded raters | |
| Outcomes | Inter‐rater reliability (see Table 3) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Watson Grade | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Observers were blinded |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Methods | A prospective validation study based on previously collected RCT data | |
| Data | Four central readers evaluated endoscopic videos captured during a placebo‐controlled trial (Feagan 2013) | |
| Comparisons | Treatment of known efficacy (mesalamine) | |
| Outcomes | Responsiveness (see Table 6) | |
| Notes | Reported in abstract form only Endoscopic Scoring indices evaluated: Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore, Modified Baron Score, UCEIS | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Central reading was employed |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (responsiveness) |
| Methods | A novel endoscopic scoring index was developed, the Endoscopic Activity Index (EAI) Inpatients and outpatients from a gastroenterology clinic between 13‐71 years with active, moderate to severe UC were eligible to participate | |
| Data | 396 patients with UC (454 colonoscopies) The endoscopic score was calculated by a single endoscopist | |
| Comparisons | EAI (endoscopic) Matts Score (endoscopic) Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score (endoscopic) Lichtiger Index (clinical) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring indices assessed: EAI, Matts Score, Rachmilewitz Endocopic Score | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | No | Clinical symptoms and endoscopic videos were assessed |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (construct validity) |
| Methods | A novel grading system was developed for use when high‐resolution video‐magnifying | |
| Data | 113 patients with UC | |
| Comparisons | Riley Score (histologic) Mucosal interluekin‐8 activity (inflammatory cytokine activity measured as picograms per microgram) | |
| Outcomes | Criterion validity, construct validity (see Table 4 and Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade Spearman's rank correlation coefficient value not given (only P value) | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Pathologist was blinded to clinical data |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not relevant (construct validity) |
| Methods | An inter‐ and intra‐observer agreement study that assessed 4 established endoscopic scoring indices and one novel index | |
| Data | 279 endoscopic images of inflamed lesions from 93 UC patients Endoscopic images were displayed twice to 4 expert and 4 trainee endoscopists over an 1 month interval | |
| Comparisons | 5 endoscopic scoring indices were assessed | |
| Outcomes | Inter‐rater and intra‐rater reliability (see Table 3) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring indices evaluated: the Matts Score, Mayo Endoscopic Subscore, Baron Score and Blackstone Score were compared to a new Modified 6‐point Activity Index (Osada Score) | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | 4 expert and 4 trainee endoscopists assessed endoscopic pictures |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | The images were displayed to the endoscopists independently |
| Methods | A prospective study of UC patients measuring the correlation between endoscopic, clinical and histologic measurement tools | |
| Data | 86 UC patients undergoing standard colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy Static endoscopic images and corresponding biopsies of the mucosa of the distal colon were obtained | |
| Comparisons | SCCAI (clinical) Rubin Histologic Score | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (see Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic index evaluated: Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore Study published in abstract form only | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Unlcear whether the endoscopist and histologist who performed scoring were blinded to patient information |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Methods | Prospective validation study of the UCCIS 50 patients with a spectrum of UC disease activity underwent a video recorded colonoscopy | |
| Data | 250 video clips (30 seconds in length) representative of an equal number of colonic segments were graded by 8 investigators (2000 evaluations of 50 patients) | |
| Comparisons | Rachmilewitz Score (clinical) SCCAI (clinical) Patient‐Defined Remission (clinical) (Higgins 2005b) C‐reactive protein albumin hemoglobin platelet count | |
| Outcomes | Criterion validity, construct validity (see Table 4 and Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: UCCIS | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | 8 gastroenterologists blindly rated mucosal lesions |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | Gastroenterologists independently assessed mucosal lesions |
| Methods | 115 UC patients requiring colonoscopy were prospectively enrolled The clinical and endoscopic portions of the Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score were assessed Fecal and blood samples were obtained after colonoscopy 4 trained gastroenterologists graded the endoscopic findings | |
| Data | 19 patients underwent 2 colonoscopies, therefore there were 134 colonoscopies performed | |
| Comparisons | Rachmilewitz Score (clinical) Fecal calprotectin C‐reactive protein Blood leukocytes | |
| Outcomes | Criterion validity, construct validity (see Table 4 and Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index assessed: Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | All gastroenterologists performing the colonoscopies were unaware of clinical and biomarker data to avoid bias The clinical score was performed by a different physician than the one that performed the colonoscopy |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not adequately described (not necessary for construct and criterion validation) |
| Methods | Consecutive UC patients were evaluated using clinical, endoscopic and histological indices in an effort to validate each index Endoscopic activity was assessed independently by 4 specialist gastroenterologists Histological activity was scored by 2 specialist pathologists | |
| Data | 91 patients with mild, moderate or severe UC | |
| Comparisons | SCCAI (clinical) Truelove and Richards Score (histologic) | |
| Outcomes | Construct validity (Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Baron Score Study published in abstract form only | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | Endoscopic activity was assessed independently by 4 specialist gastroenterologists |
| Methods | Videos were retrospectively obtained from a library of videos from clinical trials of patients with active UC | |
| Data | 57 sigmoidoscopic videos, stratified based on disease severity, were assessed by 25 investigators The investigators read 28 videos each (4 of which were duplicates, so that intra‐rater reliability could be assessed) | |
| Comparisons | Visual Analogue Scale | |
| Outcomes | Inter‐rater reliability, intra‐rater reliability, construct validity (see Table 3 and Table 5) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: UCEIS | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | Investigators were assigned videos randomly and were blinded to clinical details of patients |
| Independent Observation? | Yes | Investigators assessed videos independently |
| Methods | Purpose was to determine the impact of inter‐rater reliability on inclusion criteria and outcomes in clinical trials | |
| Data | 100 patients with UC were seen independently, on the same day, by 4 gastroenterologists Clinical assessments of disease activity were performed on the same day as sigmoidoscopy | |
| Comparisons | 3 endoscopic scoring indices were evaluated | |
| Outcomes | Inter‐rater reliability (see Table 3) | |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Baron Score, Modified Baron Score, Mayo Endoscopic Subscore Study reported in abstract form only | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Item | Authors' judgement | Description |
| Blinding? | Yes | The clinician and endoscopist were blinded |
| Independent Observation? | Unclear | Not adequately described |
SCCAI: Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index
UC: ulcerative colitis
EAI: Endoscopic Activity Index
UCDAI: Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index
UCEIS: Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity
CD: Crohn's disease
UCCIS: Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Severity
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| This study sought to identify factors predictive of endoscopic and clinical disease course No validation was performed | |
| This study evaluated whether clinical presentation correlates with endoscopic findings The Baron Score was used to assess endoscopic disease activity It is unclear whether a scoring instrument was used to assess clinical disease activity Study published in abstract form only | |
| This retrospective analysis aimed to determine whether there is discrepancy between sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy in the examination of patients with UC using the Mayo score No validation was performed | |
| This is a review article that discusses findings from Samuel 2013 | |
| This study does not report on endoscopic scoring index validation testing results | |
| No estimates of correlation reported | |
| This study describes the development of the UCEIS There was no validation of the UCEIS performed | |
| This study describes the development of the UCEIS There was no validation of the UCEIS performed While inter‐ and intra‐observer variability was calculated for the Baron Score during the model development phase, correlation estimates are given for individual items, not the overall Baron Score |
UCEIS: Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity
Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | Study describes the development and validation of a new electronic virtual chromoendoscopy score |
| Data | Not yet assessed |
| Comparisons | Not yet assessed |
| Outcomes | Not yet assessed |
| Notes | Full text article in press |
| Methods | Retrospective validation study involving 154 biopsy specimens from 82 patients with UC |
| Data | Biospy specimens were reviewed by 2 blinded pathologists |
| Comparisons | Geboes Score (histology) |
| Outcomes | Not yet assessed |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore |
| Methods | This study aimed to test validity and reliability of the UCEIS in a Korean clinical setting. 36 videos of sigmoidoscopy in patients with UC were stratified according to disease activity using Mayo score |
| Data | To be assessed |
| Comparisons | To be assessed |
| Outcomes | Not yet assessed |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: UCEIS |
| Methods | Prospective validation study comparing the EAI to a histologic measurement tool |
| Data | 96 UC patients |
| Comparisons | Histologic Activity Index |
| Outcomes | Construct validity |
| Notes | Endoscopic scoring index evaluated: EAI Waiting for full text; it is unclear what histologic activity index was used |
UC: ulcerative colitis
UCEIS: Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity
EAI: Endoscopic Activity Index
Study flow diagram.
| Index | Reference | Validation study ID | |
| 1 | Azzolini Classification | ||
| 2 | Baron Score | Burger 2011; Hirai 2010; Jun 2008; Osada 2010; Thomas 2009; Walsh 2009 | |
| 3 | Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation | ||
| 4 | CGSUC | ||
| 5 | Endoscopic Activity Index (EAI) | ||
| 6 | Jeroen Score | ||
| 7 | Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade | ||
| 8 | Matts Score | ||
| 9 | Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | Daperno 2011; Dhanda 2012; Osada 2010; Rubin 2012; Walsh 2009 | |
| 10 | Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | ||
| 11 | Modified Baron Score | ||
| 12 | Osada Score (Modified 6‐Point Activity Index) | ||
| 13 | Rachmilewitz Endocopic Score | ||
| 14 | St. Mark's Index (Powell‐Tuck Index) | ||
| 15 | Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Severity (UCCIS) | ||
| 16 | Ulcerative Coltiis Disease Activity Index (endoscopic) (Sutherland Index) | ||
| 17 | Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) | ||
| 18 | Truelove and Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score | ||
| 19 | Watson Grade |
| Index | Reference | |
| 1 | Beattie Score | |
| 2 | Binder Score | |
| 3 | Carbonnel Score | |
| 4 | Danielsson‐Löfberg Score | |
| 5 | Dick Score | |
| 6 | Friedmann Score | |
| 7 | Froslie Endoscopic Score | |
| 8 | Lemann Score | |
| 9 | Levine Score | |
| 10 | Lindgren Score | |
| 11 | Maier Score | |
| 12 | McPhee Proctoscopic Grading Scale | |
| 13 | Rutter Score | |
| 14 | Saverymuttu Score | |
| 15 | Sigmoidoscopic Index | |
| 16 | Sigmoidoscopic Inflammation Grade Scale/Lemann Score | |
| 17 | Truelove and Richards Sigmoidoscopic Appearance | |
| 18 | van der Heide Index |
| Study ID | Index | Inter‐rater ƙ (between raters) | Inter‐rater ICC (between raters) | Intra‐rater ƙ (within rater) | Intra‐rater ICC (within rater) | Internal Consistency |
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | pre‐training: 0.445 post‐training: 0.713 | |||||
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | experts: 0.53 non‐experts: 0.71 | |||||
| EAI | experts: 0.97 (95% CI 0.92‐1.00) non‐experts: 0.79 (95% CI 0.71‐0.49) | |||||
| Watson Grade | 0.87 | |||||
| Modified 6‐point Activity Index | experts: 0.65 trainees: 0.54 | experts: 0.79 trainee: 0.64 | ||||
| Matts Score | experts: 0.76 trainees: 0.44 | experts: 0.78 trainees: 0.41 | ||||
| The Mayo Endoscopic Subscore | experts: 0.74 trainees: 0.46 | experts: 0.75 trainees: 0.48 | ||||
| Baron Score | experts: 0.61 trainees: 0.47 | experts: 0.62 trainees: 0.46 | ||||
| Blackstone Score | experts: 0.57 trainees: 0.46 | experts: 0.73 trainees: 0.51 | ||||
| UCCIS | Vascular pattern rectum: 0.75 sigmoid: 0.81 descending colon: 0.74 transverse colon: 0.86 ascending/cecum: 0.85 Granularity rectum: 0.70 sigmoid: 0.78 descending colon: 0.73 transverse colon: 0.88 ascending/cecum: 0.82 Ulceration rectum: 0.80 sigmoid: 0.75 descending colon: 0.72 transverse colon: 0.73 ascending/cecum: 0.73 Bleeding/Friability rectum: 0.68 sigmoid: 0.58 descending colon: 0.56 transverse colon: 0.73 ascending/cecum: 0.77 SAES rectum: 0.79 sigmoid: 0.78 descending colon: 0.71 transverse colon: 0.84 ascending/cecum: 0.85 | |||||
| UCEIS | 0.50 | 0.72 | 0.863* | |||
| * Cronbach alpha analysis SAES: segmental assessment of endoscopic severity | ||||||
| Study ID | Index | Comparison | Correlation |
| Magnifying Colonscopy Grade | Mucosal IL‐8 activity | ρ = NS (P < 0.001) | |
| UCCIS | C‐reactive protein | r = 0.56 (P < 0.001) | |
| albumin | r = ‐0.55 (P < 0.001) | ||
| hemoglobin | r = ‐0.39 (P < 0.01) | ||
| platelet count | r = 0.19 (P > 0.05) | ||
| Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score | Fecal calprotectin | r = 0.834 (P < 0.001) | |
| C‐reactive protein | r = 0.503 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Blood leukocytes | r = 0.461 (P < 0.001) |
| Study ID | Index | Comparison | Correlation |
| Baron Score | SCCAI | ƙ = 0.27 | |
| Truelove and Richards Index | ƙ = 0.58 | ||
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | Riley Score | Week 4 r = 0.55 | |
| St. Mark's Index | UCDAI | r = 0.881 (95% CI 0.814‐0.925); ρ = 0.867 | |
| SCCAI | r = 0.908 (95% CI 0.855‐0.924); ρ = 0.866 | ||
| Seo Index | r = 0.803 (95% CI 0.699‐0.873); ρ = 0.705 | ||
| Baron Score | Rachmilewitz Score | Week 0 r = 0.39 (95% CI 0.18‐0.57, P = 0.0004) Week 4 r = 0.56 (95% CI 0.36‐0.71, P < 0.0001) Week 8 r = 0.76 (95% CI 0.60‐0.85, P < 0.0001) | |
| UCDAI | Week 0 r = 0.49 (95% CI 0.29‐0.64, P < 0.0001) Week 4 r = 0.72 (95% CI 0.57‐0.82, P < 0.0001) Week 8 r = 0.85 (95% CI 0.74‐0.91, P < 0.0001) | ||
| Seo Index | Week 0 r = 0.29 (95% CI 0.06‐0.49, P = 0.01) Week 2 r = 0.29 (95% CI 0.04‐0.51, P = 0.02) Week 4 r = 0.53 (95% CI 0.29‐0.70, P < 0.0001) | ||
| Lichtiger Index | Week 0 r = 0.47 (95% CI 0.26‐0.62, P < 0.0001) Week 4 r = 0.56 (95% CI 0.35‐0.71, P < 0.0001) Week 8 r = 0.78 (95% CI 0.64‐0.78, P < 0.0001) | ||
| Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score | Rachmilewitz Score | Week 0 r = 0.34 (95% CI 0.11‐0.52, P = 0.0003) Week 2 r = 0.66 (95% CI 0.48‐0.78, P < 0.0001) Week 4 r = 0.89 (95% CI 0.73‐0.71, P < 0.0001) | |
| UCDAI | Week 0 r = 0.44 (95% CI 0.23‐0.60, P < 0.0001) Week 4 r = 0.79 (95% CI 0.67‐0.87, P < 0.0001) Week 8 r = 0.89 (95% CI 0.82‐0.94, P < 0.0001) | ||
| Lichtiger Index | Week 0 r = 0.35 (95% CI 0.13‐0.54, P =0.002) Week 4 r = 0.28 (95% CI 0.02‐0.49, P = 0.003) Week 8 r = 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.78, P < 0.0001) | ||
| Seo Index | Week 0 r = 0.33 (95% CI 0.10‐0.51, P = 0.005) Week 4 r = 0.67 (95% CI 0.50‐0.79, P < 0.0001) Week 8 r = 0.80 (95% CI 0.67‐0.88, P < 0.0001) | ||
| CGSUC | Truelove and Witts Score | ρ = 0.750 (P < 0.001) | |
| Baron Score | ρ = 0.740 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | ρ = 0.742 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | ρ = 0.799 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | ρ = 0.685 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Truelove and Witts Score | CGSUC | ρ = 0.750 (P < 0.001) | |
| Baron Score | ρ = 0.814 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | ρ = 0.760 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | ρ = 0.782 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | ρ = 0.756 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Baron Score | CGSUC | ρ = 0.740 (P < 0.001) | |
| Truelove and Witts Score | ρ = 0.814 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | ρ = 0.750 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | ρ = 0.828 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | ρ = 0.732 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | CGSUC | ρ = 0.742 (P < 0.001) | |
| Baron Score | ρ = 0.760 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Truelove and Witts Score | ρ = 0.750 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | ρ = 0.761 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | ρ = 0.693 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | CGSUC | ρ = 0.799 (P < 0.001) | |
| Baron Score | ρ = 0.782 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Truelove and Witts Score | ρ = 0.828 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | ρ = 0.761 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | ρ = 0.788 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Azzolini Score | CGSUC | ρ = 0.685 (P < 0.001) | |
| Truelove and Witts Score | ρ = 0.756 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Baron Score | ρ = 0.732 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | ρ = 0.693 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Jeroen Score | ρ = 0.788 (P < 0.001) | ||
| EAI | Lichtiger Index | r = 0.77 (P < 0.001) | |
| Matts Score | r = 0.91 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Rachmilewitz Endoscopic Score | r = 0.87, (P < 0.001) | ||
| Magnifying Colonoscopy Grade | Riley Score | ρ = NS (P < 0.001) | |
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | SCCAI | r = 0.525 (P < 0.0001) | |
| Rubin Histologic Score | r = 0.597 (P < 0.0001) | ||
| UCCIS | SCCAI | r = 0.62 (P < 0.0001) | |
| Rachmilewitz Score | r = 0.5 (P < 0.001) | ||
| Patient‐Defined Remission Score | r = 0.43 (P < 0.01) | ||
| Rachmilewitz Score (endoscopic) | Rachmilwitz Score (clinical) | r = 0.672 (P < 0.01) | |
| Baron Score | Truelove and Richards Score | ƙ = 0.58 | |
| SCCAI | ƙ = 0.27 | ||
| UCEIS | Visual Analogue Scale | median 0.93 across investigators (minimum 0.78, maximum 0.99) statistically significant P > 0.05 | |
| Baron Score | Modified Baron Score | ƙ = 0.89 | |
| Baron Score | Mayo Endoscopic Subscore | ƙ = 0.83 | |
| ρ = Spearman's rank correlation coefficient Abbreviations: CGSUC, Chinese Grading Score for Ulcerative Colitis; EAI, Endoscopic Activity Index; IL, Interleukin; NS, Not Stated; SCCAI, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index | |||
| Study ID | Index | Treatment | Effect size (95% CI) | Guyatt's responsiveness statistic (95% CI) | Area under the ROC curve (95% CI) | Mean change (P value) |
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | Asacol | 0.49 (0.28, 0.71) | 0.32 (0.11, 0.53) | 0.66 (0.55, 0.78) | ||
| Modified Baron Score | 0.49 (0.28, 0.71) | 0.33 (0.13, 0.54) | 0.65 (0.54, 0.77) | |||
| UCEIS | 0.58 (0.36, 0.81) | 0.47 (0.25, 0.69) | 0.68 (0.58, 0.79) | |||
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | Tacrolimus | 2.9 (+/‐ 0.9) to 2.0 (+/‐ 1.0) (P < 0.001) | ||||
| UCEIS | 6.2 (+/‐ 0.9) to 3.4 (+/‐ 2.1) (P < 0.001) |
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | ||
| Study ID | IC | RB | ME | COV | FA | HT | CCV | CRV | RP | IT | GN |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | fair | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | good | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | excellent | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | |
| IC ‐ internal consistency; RB ‐ reliability; ME ‐ measurement error; COV ‐ content validity; FA ‐ factor analysis; HT ‐ hypothesis testing; CCV ‐ cross cultural validity; CRV ‐ criterion validity; RP ‐ responsiveness; IT ‐ interpretability; GN ‐ generalizability | |||||||||||
| Scoring index | Validity | Reliability | Responsiveness | Feasibility | |||||
| Content validity | Criterion validity | Construct validity | Intra‐rater | Inter‐rater | Test‐retest | Internal consistency | |||
| Azzolini Classification | ? | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Baron Score | ? | ? | + | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Blackstone Endoscopic Interpretation | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| CGSUC | ? | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Endoscopic Activity Index (EAI) | ? | ? | + | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Jeroen Score | ? | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Magnifying Colonscopy Grade | ? | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Matts Score | ? | ? | + | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | ? | ? | + | + | + | ? | ? | + | ? |
| Modified Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Subscore | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | ? |
| Modified Baron Score | ? | ? | + | ? | + | ? | ? | + | ? |
| Osada Score (Modified 6‐Point Activity Index) | ? | ? | ? | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Rachmilewitz Endocopic Score | ? | + | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| St. Mark's Index (Powell‐Tuck Index) | ? | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Severity (UCCIS) | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Ulcerative Coltiis Disease Activity Index (endoscopic) (Sutherland Index) | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Truelove and Witts Sigmoidoscopic Score | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Watson Grade | ? | ? | ? | ? | + | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| + positive rating ? no information or indeterminate rating ‐ Negative rating | |||||||||
