Aims: The primary aim of this study was to assess the reliability, intra- and inter-observer variation of the SPICE, Mucosal protrusion angle (MPA) and SHYUNG scores in differentiating a subepithelial mass (SEM) from a bulge. Methods: This retrospective multicentre study analysed the 3 scores, radiological studies, enteroscopy and/or surgical findings. Results: 100 patients with a potential SEM (mean age 57.6years) were recruited with 75 patients having pathology. In patients with a SEM the mean SPICE score was 2.04 (95% CI 1.82–2.26) as compared to 1.16 (95% CI 0.81–1.51) without any pathology (AUC 0.74, p<0.001), with a fair intra-observer agreement (Kappa 0.3, p<0.001) and slight inter-observer agreement (Kappa 0.14, p<0.05). SPICE had a 37.3% sensitivity and 92.0% specificity in distinguishing between a SEM and bulge, whereas MPA<90˚ had 58.7% and 76.0% respectively, with poor intra-observer(p = 0.05) and interobserver agreement (p = 0.64). The SHYUNG demonstrated a moderate intra-observer (Kappa 0.44, p<0.001) and slight inter-observer reliability (Kappa 0.18, p<0.001). The sensitivity of an elevated SHYUNG score (≥4) in identifying a SEM was 18.7% with a specificity of 92.0% (AUC 0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Though these scores are easy to use, they have, at best, slight to moderate intra and inter-observer agreement. Their overall diagnostic performances are limited.

Score reproducibility and reliability in differentiating small bowel subepithelial masses from innocent bulges / M. Sciberras, K. Conti, L. Elli, L. Scaramella, M.E. Riccioni, C. Marmo, S. Cadoni, M. Mcalindon, R. Sidhu, F. O'Hara, D. Mcnamara, E. Rondonotti, S. Piccirelli, C. Spada, M. Bruno, M. Keuchel, P. Baltes, N. Calleja, P.C. Valdivia, G.L. De'Angelis, R. Margalit-Yehuda, A. Koulaouzidis, X. Dray, P. Ellul. - In: DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE. - ISSN 1590-8658. - 54:10(2022 Oct), pp. 1403-1409. [10.1016/j.dld.2022.06.027]

Score reproducibility and reliability in differentiating small bowel subepithelial masses from innocent bulges

L. Elli;L. Scaramella;E. Rondonotti;
2022

Abstract

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to assess the reliability, intra- and inter-observer variation of the SPICE, Mucosal protrusion angle (MPA) and SHYUNG scores in differentiating a subepithelial mass (SEM) from a bulge. Methods: This retrospective multicentre study analysed the 3 scores, radiological studies, enteroscopy and/or surgical findings. Results: 100 patients with a potential SEM (mean age 57.6years) were recruited with 75 patients having pathology. In patients with a SEM the mean SPICE score was 2.04 (95% CI 1.82–2.26) as compared to 1.16 (95% CI 0.81–1.51) without any pathology (AUC 0.74, p<0.001), with a fair intra-observer agreement (Kappa 0.3, p<0.001) and slight inter-observer agreement (Kappa 0.14, p<0.05). SPICE had a 37.3% sensitivity and 92.0% specificity in distinguishing between a SEM and bulge, whereas MPA<90˚ had 58.7% and 76.0% respectively, with poor intra-observer(p = 0.05) and interobserver agreement (p = 0.64). The SHYUNG demonstrated a moderate intra-observer (Kappa 0.44, p<0.001) and slight inter-observer reliability (Kappa 0.18, p<0.001). The sensitivity of an elevated SHYUNG score (≥4) in identifying a SEM was 18.7% with a specificity of 92.0% (AUC 0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Though these scores are easy to use, they have, at best, slight to moderate intra and inter-observer agreement. Their overall diagnostic performances are limited.
Capsule endoscopy; Small bowel; Subepithelial masses
Settore MEDS-10/A - Gastroenterologia
ott-2022
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S1590865822005667-main.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 1.03 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.03 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1143455
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 6
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
  • OpenAlex ND
social impact