-
Something wrong with this record ?
The Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) Scale: an international reliability and validation study
G. Esposito, E. Dilaghi, C. Costa-Santos, I. Ligato, B. Annibale, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, M. Areia, GRACE Investigators
Language English Country Germany
Document type Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Validation Study
PubMed
39321961
DOI
10.1055/a-2422-0856
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Duodenum MeSH
- Gastroscopy * methods MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Observer Variation * MeSH
- Cross-Sectional Studies MeSH
- Reproducibility of Results MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Gastric Mucosa MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Validation Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: Mucosal visualization during upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy can be impaired by the presence of foam, bubbles, and mucus. Some UGI endoscopy visibility scales have been proposed but have not undergone multicenter validation. This study aimed to develop and validate the Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) scale. METHODS: A multicenter, international, cross-sectional study was conducted. The GRACE scale is based on a score from 0 (worst) to 3 (excellent) for esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, for a total ranging from 0 to 9. In phase 1, four expert endoscopists evaluated 60 images twice, with a 2-week interval between rounds; in phase 2, the same 60 images were scored twice by one expert and one nonexpert endoscopist from 27 endoscopy departments worldwide. For reproducibility assessment and real-time validation, the scale was applied to consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy at each center. RESULTS: On internal validation, interobserver agreement was 0.81 (95 %CI 0.73-0.87) and 0.80 (95 %CI 0.72-0.86), with reliability of 0.73 (95 %CI 0.63-0.82) and 0.72 (95 %CI 0.63-0.81), in the two rounds, respectively. On external validation, overall interobserver agreement was 0.85 (95 %CI 0.82-0.88) and reliability was 0.79 (95 %CI 0.73-0.84). In real-time evaluation, the overall proportion of correct classifications was 0.80 (95 %CI 0.77-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The GRACE scale showed good interobserver agreement, reliability, and validity. The widespread use of this scale could enhance quality and standardize the assessment of mucosal cleanliness during UGI endoscopy, pushing endoscopists to strive for excellent visibility and reducing the risk of missed lesions.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc25009401
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20250429135027.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 250415s2025 gw f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1055/a-2422-0856 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)39321961
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a gw
- 100 1_
- $a Esposito, Gianluca $u Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy $1 https://orcid.org/0000000222425048
- 245 14
- $a The Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) Scale: an international reliability and validation study / $c G. Esposito, E. Dilaghi, C. Costa-Santos, I. Ligato, B. Annibale, M. Dinis-Ribeiro, M. Areia, GRACE Investigators
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: Mucosal visualization during upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy can be impaired by the presence of foam, bubbles, and mucus. Some UGI endoscopy visibility scales have been proposed but have not undergone multicenter validation. This study aimed to develop and validate the Gastroscopy RAte of Cleanliness Evaluation (GRACE) scale. METHODS: A multicenter, international, cross-sectional study was conducted. The GRACE scale is based on a score from 0 (worst) to 3 (excellent) for esophagus, stomach, and duodenum, for a total ranging from 0 to 9. In phase 1, four expert endoscopists evaluated 60 images twice, with a 2-week interval between rounds; in phase 2, the same 60 images were scored twice by one expert and one nonexpert endoscopist from 27 endoscopy departments worldwide. For reproducibility assessment and real-time validation, the scale was applied to consecutive patients undergoing gastroscopy at each center. RESULTS: On internal validation, interobserver agreement was 0.81 (95 %CI 0.73-0.87) and 0.80 (95 %CI 0.72-0.86), with reliability of 0.73 (95 %CI 0.63-0.82) and 0.72 (95 %CI 0.63-0.81), in the two rounds, respectively. On external validation, overall interobserver agreement was 0.85 (95 %CI 0.82-0.88) and reliability was 0.79 (95 %CI 0.73-0.84). In real-time evaluation, the overall proportion of correct classifications was 0.80 (95 %CI 0.77-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The GRACE scale showed good interobserver agreement, reliability, and validity. The widespread use of this scale could enhance quality and standardize the assessment of mucosal cleanliness during UGI endoscopy, pushing endoscopists to strive for excellent visibility and reducing the risk of missed lesions.
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a průřezové studie $7 D003430
- 650 12
- $a gastroskopie $x metody $7 D005773
- 650 _2
- $a reprodukovatelnost výsledků $7 D015203
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 12
- $a odchylka pozorovatele $7 D015588
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a žaludeční sliznice $7 D005753
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a dospělí $7 D000328
- 650 _2
- $a duodenum $7 D004386
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
- 655 _2
- $a validační studie $7 D023361
- 700 1_
- $a Dilaghi, Emanuele $u Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
- 700 1_
- $a Costa-Santos, Cristina $u Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal $u Center for Health Technology and Services Research - CINTESIS@RISE, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- 700 1_
- $a Ligato, Irene $u Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
- 700 1_
- $a Annibale, Bruno $u Department of Medical-Surgical Sciences and Translational Medicine, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
- 700 1_
- $a Dinis-Ribeiro, Mário $u Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto, Porto, Portugal $u Center for Research in Health Technologies and Information Systems (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
- 700 1_
- $a Areia, Miguel $u Francisco Gentil Portuguese Institute for Oncology of Coimbra, Gastroenterology Department, Portuguese Oncology Institute of Coimbra (IPO Coimbra), Coimbra, Portugal $u RISE@CI-IPO (Health Research Network), Portuguese Oncology Institute of Porto (IPO Porto), Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto (FMUP), Porto, Portugal $1 https://orcid.org/0000000197878175
- 710 2_
- $a GRACE Investigators
- 773 0_
- $w MED00009605 $t Endoscopy $x 1438-8812 $g Roč. 57, č. 4 (2025), s. 312-320
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39321961 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20250415 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20250429135023 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 2311029 $s 1246482
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC-MEDLINE
- BMC __
- $a 2025 $b 57 $c 4 $d 312-320 $e 20240925 $i 1438-8812 $m Endoscopy $n Endoscopy $x MED00009605
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20250415