Radiographic stool quantification: an equivalence study of 484 symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects
To determine if symptomatic patients referred for radiographic stool quantification have equivalent stool burden to asymptomatic patients.
This was an IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective equivalence cohort study. An a priori equivalence power calculation was performed. Consecutive abdominal radiographs performed in adult outpatients with bloating, constipation, diarrhea, or abdominal pain to assess “fecal loading” [n = 242 (fecal cohort)] were compared to those performed in asymptomatic adult outpatients to assess “renal stones” [n = 242 (renal cohort)]. Radiographs were randomized and reviewed by two blinded independent abdominal radiologists. Exclusion criteria, designed to avoid unblinding, included urinary tract calculi ≥ 0.5 cm, multiple urinary tract calculi, and ureteral stent(s). Readers scored all radiographs (n = 484) for stool burden using validated Leech criteria [scale: 0 (none) to 15 (extreme diffuse)]. Mean Leech scores and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling was performed to adjust for baseline medication use, age, and gender. The adjusted parameter estimate was used to test for equivalence in the mean difference between cohorts using Schuirmann’s method of two one-sided t-tests. Inter-reader agreement was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients.
Overall mean Leech scores for fecal [6.9 (95% CI 6.7, 7.2)] and renal [7.3 (95% CI 7.1, 7.5)] cohorts were equivalent within a margin of 0.75 (adjusted mean difference: − 0.4 [90% CI − 0.7, − 0.04]; p value = 0.02). Inter-reader agreement was good [ICC: 0.62 (95% CI 0.56, 0.68)].
Radiographic stool quantification produces equivalent results in symptomatic and asymptomatic adults and is of uncertain value.
KeywordsConstipation Fecal loading Utilization Abdominal radiograph Value
- 6.National Collaborating Centre for Ws, Children’s H (2010) National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guidance. In: Constipation in Children and Young People: Diagnosis and Management of Idiopathic Childhood Constipation in Primary and Secondary Care. RCOG Press. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health., LondonGoogle Scholar
- 7.Cowlam S, Vinayagam R, Khan U, Marsden S, Minty I, Moncur P, Bain I, Yiannakou YJ (2008) Blinded comparison of faecal loading on plain radiography versus radio-opaque marker transit studies in the assessment of constipation. Clinical radiology 63 (12):1326-1331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2008.06.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.The Big List of Narcotic Drugs. (2018) American Addiction Centers. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/the-big-list-of-narcotic-drugs/. Accessed October 23 2018
- 12.Medical Imaging Resource Community (MIRC). (2018) Radiological Society of North America. http://mirc.rsna.org/query. Accessed 10/23/18 2018
- 15.Rezazadeh A, Javaherizadeh H, Chahardahcherik F, Yavarahmadi MH, Sadjadei N, Tahmasebi M (2016) Reliability of Barr, Leech, and Blethyn score in using of plain radiography in determining fecal impaction in children with and without constipation. Arquivos de gastroenterologia 53 (3):141-145. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-28032016000300004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.de Lorijn F, van Rijn RR, Heijmans J, Reitsma JB, Voskuijl WP, Henneman OD, Taminiau JA, Benninga MA (2006) The Leech method for diagnosing constipation: intra- and interobserver variability and accuracy. Pediatric radiology 36 (1):43-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-005-0031-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Shankar PR, Kaza RK, Al-Hawary MM, Masch WR, Curci NE, Mendiratta-Lala M, Sakala MD, Johnson TD, Davenport MS (2018) Impact of Clinical History on Maximum PI-RADS Version 2 Score: A Six-Reader 120-Case Sham History Retrospective Evaluation. Radiology 288 (1):158-163. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar