Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Mayo Endoscopic Score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Are Equally Effective for Endoscopic Activity Evaluation in Ulcerative Colitis Patients in a Real Life Setting
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Mayo Endoscopic Score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Are Equally Effective for Endoscopic Activity Evaluation in Ulcerative Colitis Patients in a Real Life Setting
Do you wish to request the book?
Mayo Endoscopic Score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Are Equally Effective for Endoscopic Activity Evaluation in Ulcerative Colitis Patients in a Real Life Setting
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Mayo Endoscopic Score and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index Are Equally Effective for Endoscopic Activity Evaluation in Ulcerative Colitis Patients in a Real Life Setting
2021
Overview
The role of endoscopic evaluation in ulcerative colitis (UC) is well recognized, but a universally accepted gold standard for endoscopic activity evaluation is still lacking, and many scores have been proposed to this purpose. Among these, the Mayo Endoscopic Score (MES) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index (UCEIS) are currently the most used in trials and clinical practice. The aim of the study is to evaluate feasibility and performance of MES and UCEIS among expert endoscopists with no specific expertise in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), in a single hospital center. Two minutes video recordings, from colonoscopy of 12 UC patients, were observed and scored, according to MES and UCEIS, by seven hospital gastroenterologists with experience in digestive endoscopy and no particular expertise in IBD. Knowledge and utilization of the two scores were investigated. Inter-observer agreement and agreement with an IBD-expert gastroenterologist of the same center (central reader), and correlation between the two scores, was calculated. Among the endoscopists, MES was much more known and currently used than UCEIS. Both the scores displayed a similar good performance. Agreement with central reader was moderate for MES and UCEIS, and interobserver agreement was good, for both MES and UCEIS. Correlation between the two scores was very good both for central reader and for the hospital endoscopists. This single center study confirmed potential feasibility and usefulness of MES and UCEIS for assessment of endoscopic activity in UC patients in a real-life setting.
