ArticleArchive of clinical cases2026
Interobserver variability in colonoscopy quality assessment: a retrospective standardized multicenter video-based study.
Article in Archive of clinical cases, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsColonoscopy quality assessment is essential for adequate bowel preparation and complete examination, yet even validated tools such as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) remain partly subjective. We assessed interobserver variability in expert evaluation using a standardized multicenter video dataset.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter study included 64 anonymized complete colonoscopy videos from two academic centers. Eight experienced gastroenterologists independently evaluated recordings in randomly assigned pairs. Videos were assessed by five reviewer-pair combinations; individual reviewers evaluated between 10 and 33 examinations, and each pair assessed between 10 and 23 videos. Assessments included segmental and total BBPS scores, bowel preparation adequacy, and recognition of key anatomical landmarks: ileocecal valve, appendiceal orifice, hepatic and splenic flexures, and anal verge. Interobserver agreement was assessed using linear weighted Cohen's kappa for segmental BBPS scores, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for total BBPS score, and Cohen's kappa with overall percent agreement for bowel preparation adequacy and anatomical landmark recognition. Because reviewer pairs varied across examinations, agreement measures were interpreted as pooled pairwise agreement across independent expert assessments. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was retained as a complementary analysis for paired BBPS score differences.
resultsSignificant inter-reviewer variability was observed in BBPS scoring. Differences were found for the right colon, transverse colon, left colon, and total BBPS score: 2.42 vs 1.91, p<0.01; 2.47 vs 2.11, p<0.01; 2.44 vs 2.22, p<0.05; and 7.33 vs 6.23, p<0.01, respectively. Overall, bowel preparation adequacy classification did not differ significantly, although discordant judgments occurred in 34% of examinations. Anatomical landmark recognition also varied, particularly for the appendiceal orifice and colonic flexures.
conclusionsExpert-based assessment may show clinically relevant variability despite standardized review conditions, supporting the need for more objective and reproducible approaches to colonoscopy quality control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.