↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn’s disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

1 tweeter
1 Facebook page


43 Dimensions

Readers on

119 Mendeley
Endoscopic scoring indices for evaluation of disease activity in Crohn’s disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010642.pub2
Pubmed ID

Reena Khanna, Sigrid A Nelson, Brian G Feagan, Geert D'Haens, William J Sandborn, GY Zou, John K MacDonald, Claire E Parker, Vipul Jairath, Barrett G Levesque


Endoscopic assessment of mucosal disease activity is widely used to determine eligibility and response to therapy in clinical trials of treatment for Crohn's disease. However, the operating properties of the currently available endoscopic indices remain unclear. A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the development and operating characteristics of the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS) and Simple Endoscopic Scale for Crohn's Disease (SES-CD). Electronic searches of the MEDLINE (1966 to December 2015), EMBASE (1980 to December 2015), and Cochrane CENTRAL Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 12, 2015) databases were supplemented by manual reviews of reference listings and conference proceedings (Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week, European Crohn's and Colitis Organization). Any study design (e.g. randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series) that evaluated either or both the CDEIS or SES-CD in patients with Crohn's disease was considered for inclusion. Eligible participants were adult patients (> 16 years), diagnosed with Crohn's disease using conventional clinical, radiographic, and endoscopic criteria. Two authors (RK, JKM) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified from the literature search. The full texts of potentially relevant citations were reviewed for inclusion and the study investigators were contacted to clarify any unclear data. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus with a third author. A standardized form was used to assess eligibility of trials for inclusion in the study and for data extraction.Two authors independently extracted and recorded data (RK, SAN). The number of patients enrolled; number of patients per treatment arm; patient characteristics including age and gender distribution; endoscopic index; and outcomes such as intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability responsiveness, validity, feasibility, construct validity, and criterion validity were recorded for each trial. Forty-three reports of 30 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria.For the SES-CD, inter-rater reliability was assessed in four studies. In the development study for the SES-CD (Daperno 2004), the overall ICC (0.9815, 95% CI 0.9705 to 0.9884) and the kappa for the regions is high; however the paired raters were in the same room which introduces the potential for bias.For the CDEIS, inter-rater reliability was assessed in six studies. Daperno 2014 reported that the ICC for the CDEIS was 0.985 (95% CI 0.939-1.000) for average measures of video score and was 0.835 (95% CI 0.540-0.995) for single measures of video score.With respect to validity, correlation between the CDEIS and clinical measures, including C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), was also reported. The estimates of correlation with CRP were r = 0.521 (Sipponen 2010b), r = 0.553 (Sipponen 2008a) and r = 0.608 (Sipponen 2008c). For the SES-CD, the corresponding values for correlation with CRP ranged from r = 0.46 (Jones 2008) to r = 0.68 (Green 2011).Responsiveness data for the CDEIS were available in nine studies. Seven studies demonstrated statistically significant decreases in the CDEIS score after administration of a treatment of known efficacy. Minimal responsiveness data were available for the SES-CD. Sipponen 2010a and Sipponen 2010b demonstrated statistically significant changes in the SES-CD score after subjects were administered a treatment of known efficacy.No studies were identified that explicitly evaluated the feasibility for either the SES-CD or the CDEIS. The SES-CD requires fewer calculations and may therefore be easier to use than the CDEIS. Although they are used in clinical trials, the CDEIS and SES-CD remain incompletely validated. Future research is required to determine the operating properties and to define the optimal index.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 118 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 25%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 23 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 30 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2016.
All research outputs
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 262,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.