In the 50 repeat pairs of videos, agreement in the rectal bleeding score between the 2 readings

improved from a κ of 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27–0.67) to 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47–0.80) (Table 4) when symptoms were known, but the numbers are small. It is understandable that if symptoms of rectal bleeding are present, then the threshold for describing bleeding at endoscopy (and therefore variability in that description) is reduced. Further evaluation of the impact of clinical details on endoscopists’ assessment in UC is warranted. Sensitivity to change is a valuable property of an index and is best achieved by comparing the delta change to the assessment of variance in patients unchanged after treatment of known efficacy. This needs to be assessed in a prospective Selleckchem Target Selective Inhibitor Library clinical trial, although statistical analysis in the RG7204 in vivo current cohort showed that the UCEIS was significantly different 90% of the time when the overall severity on the VAS differed by 25 points. The clinical relevance of this modeling must be regarded

as uncertain. In a further step toward its place in research, training, and clinical practice, the UCEIS is currently undergoing development by the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation as a training tool. This study is a first step in the validation of the UCEIS. It has confirmed the reliability of the UCEIS, even if further validation is needed to establish thresholds for remission, the clinical relevance of different UCEIS scores, and responsiveness of the UCEIS to change in disease status. The UCEIS is based on evaluation of the most severely affected area at flexible sigmoidoscopy. It is as yet unclear how an overall score might be affected by full colonoscopy or whether it might be applied in colonic segments.15 and 16 Colonoscopy could result in a higher UCEIS than sigmoidoscopy simply because a larger area is examined; because scoring is applied to the area of maximum severity, if that area lies proximal to the rectosigmoid colon, the TCL score would

increase de facto. This might, in turn, alter the overall evaluation of endoscopic severity. The UCEIS showed consistency in endoscopic evaluation and, if it can be shown to correspond with histological disease activity or validated biomarkers, may facilitate the use of smaller sample sizes in clinical trials due to increased statistical power derived from this consistency. If the UCEIS can demonstrably affect decision making or predict clinical outcome, then this will amplify its role in clinical practice. The UCEIS reliably evaluates the overall endoscopic severity of UC and accounts for 88% of the variance between endoscopists. It is simple to use, based on the sum of 3 descriptors with a score ranging from 0 to 8. The thresholds for severity and remission remain to be defined, as does the responsiveness to change. In conjunction with a training package to protect the reliability of scoring, it is ready to be further evaluated in clinical trials.