Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Leech method for diagnosing constipation: intra- and interobserver variability and accuracy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The data concerning the value of a plain abdominal radiograph in childhood constipation are inconsistent. Recently, positive results have been reported of a new radiographic scoring system, "the Leech method", for assessing faecal loading.

Objective

To assess intra- and interobserver variability and determine diagnostic accuracy of the Leech method in identifying children with functional constipation (FC).

Materials and methods

A total of 89 children (median age 9.8 years) with functional gastrointestinal disorders were included in the study. Based on clinical parameters, 52 fulfilled the criteria for FC, six fulfilled the criteria for functional abdominal pain (FAP), and 31 for functional non-retentive faecal incontinence (FNRFI); the latter two groups provided the controls. To assess intra- and interobserver variability of the Leech method three scorers scored the same abdominal radiograph twice. A Leech score of 9 or more was considered as suggestive of constipation. ROC analysis was used to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Leech method in separating patients with FC from control patients.

Results

Significant intraobserver variability was found between two scorers (P=0.005 and P<0.0001), whereas there was no systematic difference between the two scores of the other scorer (P=0.89). The scores between scorers differed systematically and displayed large variability. The area under the ROC curve was 0.68 (95% CI 0.58–0.80), indicating poor diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

The Leech scoring method for assessing faecal loading on a plain abdominal radiograph is of limited value in the diagnosis of FC in children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barr RG, Levine MD, Wilkinson RH, et al (1979) Chronic and occult stool retention: a clinical tool for its evaluation in school-aged children. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 18:674–679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blethyn AJ, Verrier JK, Newcombe R, et al (1995) Radiological assessment of constipation. Arch Dis Child 73:532–533

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Benninga MA, Buller HA, Staalman CR, et al (1995) Defaecation disorders in children, colonic transit time versus the Barr-score. Eur J Pediatr 154:277–284

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Tudor GR, Finlay D, Taub N (1997) An assessment of inter-observer agreement and accuracy when reporting plain radiographs. Clin Radiol 52:235–238

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Zaslavsky C, da Silveira TR, Maguilnik I (1998) Total and segmental colonic transit time with radio-opaque markers in adolescents with functional constipation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 27:138–142

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gutierrez C, Marco A, Nogales A, et al (2002) Total and segmental colonic transit time and anorectal manometry in children with chronic idiopathic constipation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 35:31–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. de Lorijn F, van Wijk MP, Reitsma JB, et al (2004) Prognosis of constipation: clinical factors and colonic transit time. Arch Dis Child 89:723–727

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Park ES, Park CI, Cho SR, et al (2004) Colonic transit time and constipation in children with spastic cerebral palsy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85:453–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Leech SC, McHugh K, Sullivan PB (1999) Evaluation of a method of assessing faecal loading on plain abdominal radiographs in children. Pediatr Radiol 29:255–258

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Loening-Baucke V (1990) Biofeedback therapy for faecal incontinence. Dig Dis 8:112–124

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rasquin-Weber A, Hyman PE, Cucchiara S, et al (1999) Childhood functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gut 45(Suppl 2):II60–II68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Benninga M, Candy DC, Catto-Smith AG, et al (2005) The Paris Consensus on Childhood Constipation Terminology (PACCT) Group. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 40:273–275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Plas RN, Benninga MA, Redekop WK, et al (1996) Randomised trial of biofeedback training for encopresis. Arch Dis Child 75:367–374

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Arhan P, et al (1992) What is the meaning of colorectal transit time measurement? Dis Colon Rectum 35:773–782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Metcalf AM, Phillips SF, Zinsmeister AR, et al (1987) Simplified assessment of segmental colonic transit. Gastroenterology 92:40–47

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Arhan P, Devroede G, Jehannin B, et al (1981) Segmental colonic transit time. Dis Colon Rectum 24:625–629

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44:837–845

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Youden WJ (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3:32–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Afzal N, Murch S, Thirrupathy K, et al (2003) Constipation with acquired megarectum in children with autism. Pediatrics 112:939–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Quinn MF (1989) Relation of observer agreement to accuracy according to a two-receiver signal detection model of diagnosis. Med Decis Making 9:196–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Boyd NF, Wolfson C, Moskowitz M, et al (1982) Observer variation in the interpretation of xeromammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 68:357–363

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Wald A (1986) Colonic transit and anorectal manometry in chronic idiopathic constipation. Arch Intern Med 146:1713–1716

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Papadopoulou A, Clayden GS, Booth IW (1994) The clinical value of solid marker transit studies in childhood constipation and soiling. Eur J Pediatr 153:560–564

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Reuchlin-Vroklage LM, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Benninga MA, et al (2005) Diagnostic value of abdominal radiography in constipated children: a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 159:671–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. van der Plas RN, Benninga MA, Redekop WK, et al (1997) How accurate is the recall of bowel habits in children with defaecation disorders? Eur J Pediatr 156:178–181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Benninga MA, Buller HA, Heymans HS, et al (1994) Is encopresis always the result of constipation? Arch Dis Child 71:186–193

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Voskuijl WP, Heijmans J, Heijmans HS, et al (2004) Use of Rome II criteria in childhood defecation disorders: applicability in clinical and research practice. J Pediatr 145:213–217

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Emma Children's Hospital, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Fleur de Lorijn, Jarom Heijmans, Wieger P. Voskuijl, Jan A. Taminiau & Marc A. Benninga

  2. Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Rick R. van Rijn, Jarom Heijmans & Onno D. F. Henneman

  3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Johannes B. Reitsma

Authors
  1. Fleur de Lorijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rick R. van Rijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jarom Heijmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Johannes B. Reitsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Wieger P. Voskuijl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Onno D. F. Henneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jan A. Taminiau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marc A. Benninga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fleur de Lorijn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Lorijn, F., van Rijn, R.R., Heijmans, J. et al. The Leech method for diagnosing constipation: intra- and interobserver variability and accuracy. Pediatr Radiol 36, 43–49 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-005-0031-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-005-0031-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation