PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 1, 2002Anaesthesia and Intensive Care448 citations

The ASA Physical Status Classification: Inter-observer Consistency

View Full Paper
PMPeter MakRCR. C. H. CampbellMIMichael G. Irwin

Key Result

The ASA physical status classification demonstrated only fair inter-observer consistency among specialist anaesthetists (Kappa 0.21-0.4), with significant differences based on training location (P<0.05).

Study Design

Type

Cross-Sectional (n=97)

Structured PICO

P
Population
97 specialist anaesthetists in Hong Kong (from 160 surveyed)
I
Intervention
Questionnaire assigning an ASA physical status classification to 10 hypothetical patients
O
Outcome
Inter-observer consistency/agreement of ASA classification (measured by percentage agreement and Kappa indices)

The ASA physical status classification system demonstrates only fair inter-observer consistency among specialist anaesthetists, highlighting the potential need for a more precise scoring system.

Main Result

Effect estimate: Kappa 0.21-0.4

p-value: p=<0.05

Abstract

The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system has previously been shown to be inconsistently applied by anaesthetists. One hundred and sixty questionnaires were sent out to all specialist anaesthetists in Hong Kong. Ten hypothetical patients, identical to those of a similar study undertaken 20 years ago, each with different types and degrees ofphysical disability were described. Respondents were asked about their country of training and type of anaesthetic practice and to assign an ASA classification status for each patient. Ninety-seven questionnaires were returned (61%) after two mailings. Agreement for each patient within groups, between groups and overall comparisons were made. Percentage of agreement was between 31 to 85%. Overall correlation was only fair in all groups (Kappa indices: 0.21-0.4). We found that the current pattern of inter-observer inconsistency of classification was similar to that 20 years ago and exaggerated between locally and overseas trained specialists (P<0.05). The validity of the ASA system, its usefulness and the need for a new, more precise scoring system is discussed.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mak et al. (2002) conducted a cross-sectional in Inter-observer consistency of ASA physical status classification (n=97). Questionnaire on ASA classification of 10 hypothetical patients was evaluated on Inter-observer agreement for ASA classification (Kappa 0.21-0.4, p=<0.05). The ASA physical status classification demonstrated only fair inter-observer consistency among specialist anaesthetists (Kappa 0.21-0.4), with significant differences based on training location (P<0.05).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0e899ca03ab944350453aahttps://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x0203000516
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation1995 · 374 citations
  2. 2Use of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification in non-trauma surgical versus trauma patients: a survey of inter-observer consistency2018 · 3 citations
  3. 3Inter-Rater Reliability of the ASA Physical Status Classification in a Sample of Anaesthetists in Western Australia2014 · 109 citations
  4. 4American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Physical Status system2011 · 80 citations
  5. 5How well do pediatric anesthesiologists agree when assigning ASA physical status classifications to their patients?<sup>1</sup>2007 · 45 citations