• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级在急诊胃肠手术中的评分者间信度。

Inter-rater reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status rating for emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

作者信息

Shichino Tsutomu, Hirao Motohiro, Haga Yoshio

机构信息

Department of Anesthesia National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center Kyoto Japan.

Department of Surgery National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital Osaka Japan.

出版信息

Acute Med Surg. 2016 Sep 13;4(2):161-165. doi: 10.1002/ams2.241. eCollection 2017 Apr.

DOI:10.1002/ams2.241
PMID:29123855
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5667267/
Abstract

AIM

The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system is used worldwide and has also been incorporated into various prediction rules. However, concerns have been raised regarding inter-rater agreement in various surgical fields. Although emergency gastrointestinal surgery is relatively common and associated with high postoperative mortality, a reliability study has not yet been undertaken in this field. The aim of the present study was to investigate the inter-rater reliability of ASA-PS for emergency gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

Three sets of scenarios were generated for each ASA-PS class (2E, 3E, and 4E) in emergency gastrointestinal surgery, resulting in nine scenarios. These scenarios described the preoperative profiles of patients in one hospital. Two or three anesthesiologists from 18 other hospitals provided scores for ASA-PS for each scenario.

RESULTS

Fifty anesthesiologists scored the ASA-PS class. Between 66% and 90% of these anesthesiologists assigned the same ratings as the reference ratings for the individual scenarios. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' kappa (95% confidence interval) of 0.55 (0.54-0.56, < 0.001) and an intraclass correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) of 0.79 (0.63-0.93, < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The results of the present study revealed the consistency of ASA-PS ratings between anesthesiologists for emergency gastrointestinal surgery. The ASA-PS may serve as a reliable variable in the prediction rules for this field.

摘要

目的

美国麻醉医师协会身体状况(ASA-PS)分类系统在全球范围内使用,并且已被纳入各种预测规则。然而,不同手术领域的评分者间一致性受到了关注。尽管急诊胃肠手术相对常见且术后死亡率高,但该领域尚未进行可靠性研究。本研究的目的是调查急诊胃肠手术中ASA-PS评分者间的可靠性。

方法

针对急诊胃肠手术中的每个ASA-PS等级(2E、3E和4E)生成三组病例场景,共九个场景。这些场景描述了一家医院患者的术前情况。来自其他18家医院的两到三名麻醉医师为每个场景的ASA-PS评分。

结果

50名麻醉医师对ASA-PS等级进行了评分。其中66%至90%的麻醉医师给出的评分与各病例场景的参考评分相同。评分者间可靠性采用Fleiss卡方检验(95%置信区间)为0.55(0.54 - 0.56,<0.001),组内相关系数(95%置信区间)为0.79(0.63 - 0.93,<0.001)。

结论

本研究结果显示了急诊胃肠手术中麻醉医师对ASA-PS评分的一致性。ASA-PS可能作为该领域预测规则中的一个可靠变量。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0313/5667267/0c7e14c74d15/AMS2-4-161-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0313/5667267/0c7e14c74d15/AMS2-4-161-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0313/5667267/0c7e14c74d15/AMS2-4-161-g001.jpg

相似文献

1
Inter-rater reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status rating for emergency gastrointestinal surgery.美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级在急诊胃肠手术中的评分者间信度。
Acute Med Surg. 2016 Sep 13;4(2):161-165. doi: 10.1002/ams2.241. eCollection 2017 Apr.
2
The Assignment of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification for Adult Polytrauma Patients: Results From a Survey and Future Considerations.美国麻醉医师协会成年多发伤患者身体状况分类的赋值:一项调查结果及未来考量
Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):1960-1966. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002450.
3
Assignment of pre-event ASA physical status classification by pre-hospital physicians: a prospective inter-rater reliability study.院前医师对术前美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级的评估:一项前瞻性的组内一致性研究。
BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 Jul 9;20(1):167. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01083-x.
4
Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.美国麻醉医师协会身体状况量表在临床实践中的可靠性。
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;113(3):424-32. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu100. Epub 2014 Apr 11.
5
The Pediatric-Specific American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score: A Multicenter Study.小儿专用美国麻醉医师协会身体状况评分:一项多中心研究。
Anesth Analg. 2021 Mar 1;132(3):807-817. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005025.
6
One Size Does Not Fit All: A Perspective on the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification for Pediatric Patients.一刀切并不适用:美国麻醉医师协会小儿患者身体状况分类的观点。
Anesth Analg. 2020 Jun;130(6):1685-1692. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004277.
7
Addressing Inter-Rater Variability in the ASA-PS Classification System.解决 ASA-PS 分类系统中的评分者间变异性。
Mil Med. 2020 Jun 8;185(5-6):e545-e549. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usz433.
8
An evaluation of the accuracy and self-reported confidence of clinicians in using the ASA-PS Classification System.对临床医生使用美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分级系统(ASA-PS Classification System)的准确性及自我报告的信心的评估。
J Clin Anesth. 2022 Aug;79:110794. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110794. Epub 2022 Mar 31.
9
Clinical agreement in the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification.美国麻醉医师协会身体状况分类中的临床一致性。
Perioper Med (Lond). 2018 Jun 19;7:14. doi: 10.1186/s13741-018-0094-7. eCollection 2018.
10
An assessment of the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status score in the orthopaedic trauma population.对骨科创伤人群中美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况评分的评分者间信度的评估。
Injury. 2015 Apr;46(4):542-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.039. Epub 2014 Mar 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Predictive Value of Emergency Designation on Outcomes of Moribund Patients.紧急指定对濒死患者结局的预测价值。
Cureus. 2022 Jul 15;14(7):e26875. doi: 10.7759/cureus.26875. eCollection 2022 Jul.

本文引用的文献

1
Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice.美国麻醉医师协会身体状况量表在临床实践中的可靠性。
Br J Anaesth. 2014 Sep;113(3):424-32. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeu100. Epub 2014 Apr 11.
2
An assessment of the inter-rater reliability of the ASA physical status score in the orthopaedic trauma population.对骨科创伤人群中美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)身体状况评分的评分者间信度的评估。
Injury. 2015 Apr;46(4):542-6. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.039. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
3
Development and validation of the Calculation of post-Operative Risk in Emergency Surgery (CORES) model.
急诊手术术后风险计算(CORES)模型的开发与验证
Surg Today. 2014 Aug;44(8):1443-56. doi: 10.1007/s00595-013-0707-1. Epub 2013 Aug 31.
4
The Surgical Mortality Probability Model: derivation and validation of a simple risk prediction rule for noncardiac surgery.外科手术死亡率预测模型:一种用于非心脏手术的简单风险预测规则的推导和验证。
Ann Surg. 2012 Apr;255(4):696-702. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31824b45af.
5
American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status system: a multicentre Francophone study to analyse reasons for classification disagreement.美国麻醉师协会身体状况系统:一项多中心法语研究,旨在分析分类分歧的原因。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011 Oct;28(10):742-7. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328348fc9d.
6
Development and validation of a risk calculator for prediction of cardiac risk after surgery.手术心脏风险预测风险计算器的开发和验证。
Circulation. 2011 Jul 26;124(4):381-7. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.015701. Epub 2011 Jul 5.
7
Development and validation of a risk quantification index for 30-day postoperative mortality and morbidity in noncardiac surgical patients.开发和验证非心脏手术患者术后 30 天死亡率和发病率的风险量化指数。
Anesthesiology. 2011 Jun;114(6):1336-44. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318219d5f9.
8
Development and validation of a bariatric surgery morbidity risk calculator using the prospective, multicenter NSQIP dataset.使用前瞻性、多中心 NSQIP 数据集开发和验证减重手术发病率风险计算器。
J Am Coll Surg. 2011 Mar;212(3):301-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.11.003. Epub 2011 Jan 17.
9
Risk adjustment for comparing hospital quality with surgery: how many variables are needed?用手术比较医院质量的风险调整:需要多少变量?
J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Apr;210(4):503-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.01.018.
10
A pilot study evaluating predictors of postoperative outcomes after major abdominal surgery: Physiological capacity compared with the ASA physical status classification system.一项评估大腹部手术后术后结果预测因素的初步研究:生理能力与 ASA 身体状况分类系统的比较。
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Apr;104(4):465-71. doi: 10.1093/bja/aeq034. Epub 2010 Feb 26.