MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail

Do you wish to reserve the book?
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
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.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
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?
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations

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
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
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.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations
Journal Article

Assessing hard and loose \endpoints\: comparison of patient and expert Bristol Stool Scale scoring of 2280 fecal samples version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations

2024
Request Book From Autostore and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Background Stool consistency is an important outcome measure to evaluate in the investigation of several gastrointestinal diseases. The Bristol Stool Scale (BSS) is one of the most commonly used tools for evaluation of stool consistency. BSS ranges from 1-7 and each score is assigned to a given consistency of the feces. Self-reported characterizations can differ from an expert evaluation, and the reliability of BSS is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the reliability of BSS by comparing patient scores with expert scores. Methods Patients with inflammatory bowel disease collected stool samples throughout a 3-year follow-up. The stool´s consistency was evaluated with BSS by the patients and matched with an expert score. Agreement between patient and expert scores was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Results BSS scores from 2280 fecal samples collected from 992 patients at up to five time points were included. When all samples were compared, there was good to substantial agreement between patient and expert scores (Cohen's weighted kappa: 0.66-0.72). When the BSS scores were simplified and categorized as 1 (scores 1-2), 2 (scores 3-5) or 3 (scores 6-7), the agreement improved slightly (Cohen's weighted kappa: 0.73-0.77). When the scores from the first sample per patient were compared, the experts were more likely to assign higher scores compared to the patient. The proportion of the lowest assigned scores (1-2) was 12.1% for patients and 8.1% for experts. Conclusions The agreement between patient and expert BSS scores is good to substantial, especially when the BSS scores are simplified into three categories.