Mak Jason Nicholas, Uzuner Cansu, Espada Mercedes, Eathorn Allie, Reid Shannon, Leonardi Mathew, Armour Mike, Condous George Stanley
Acute Gynaecology, Early Pregnancy, and Advanced Endosurgery Unit, Nepean Hospital, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Blue Mountains District ANZAC Memorial Hospital, Katoomba, New South Wales, Australia.
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2025 Feb;65(1):101-106. doi: 10.1111/ajo.13851. Epub 2024 Jun 19.
Inter-observer agreement for the American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopists (AAGL) 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has not been described. Its predecessor staging system, the revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine (rASRM), has historically demonstrated poor inter-observer agreement.
We aimed to determine the inter-observer agreement performance of the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system, and compare this with the rASRM staging system.
A database of 317 patients with coded surgical data was retrospectively analysed. Three independent observers allocated AAGL surgical stages (1-4), twice. Observers made their own interpretation of how to apply the tool in the first staging allocation. Consensus rules were then developed for a second staging allocation.
First staging allocation: odds ratio (OR) (and 95% CI) for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 8.08 (5.12-12.76). Observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 12.98 (7.99-21.11) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.61 (1.03-2.51). This represents poor agreement. Second staging allocation (after consensus): OR for observer 1 to score higher than observer 2 was 1.14 (0.64-2.03), observer 1 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.81 (0.99-3.28) and observer 2 to score higher than observer 3 was 1.59 (0.87-2.89). This represents good agreement.
These findings suggest that in its current format the AAGL 2021 Endometriosis Classification staging system has poor inter-observer agreement, not superior to the rASRM staging system. However, performance improved when additional measures were taken to simplify and clarify areas of ambiguity in interpreting the staging system.
美国妇科腹腔镜医师协会(AAGL)2021年子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统的观察者间一致性尚未见报道。其前身分期系统,即修订后的美国生殖医学学会(rASRM)分期系统,历来观察者间一致性较差。
我们旨在确定AAGL 2021年子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统的观察者间一致性表现,并将其与rASRM分期系统进行比较。
对一个包含317例患者手术数据编码的数据库进行回顾性分析。三名独立观察者对AAGL手术分期(1 - 4期)进行了两次分配。观察者在首次分期分配时自行解读如何应用该工具。然后为第二次分期分配制定了共识规则。
首次分期分配:观察者1得分高于观察者2的优势比(OR)(及95%可信区间)为8.08(5.12 - 12.76)。观察者1得分高于观察者3的优势比为12.98(7.99 - 21.11),观察者2得分高于观察者3的优势比为1.61(1.03 - 2.51)。这表明一致性较差。第二次分期分配(达成共识后):观察者1得分高于观察者2的优势比为1.14(0.64 - 2.03),观察者1得分高于观察者3的优势比为1.81(0.99 - 3.28),观察者2得分高于观察者3的优势比为1.59(0.87 - 2.89)。这表明一致性良好。
这些发现表明,以当前形式,AAGL 2021年子宫内膜异位症分类分期系统的观察者间一致性较差,并不优于rASRM分期系统。然而,当采取额外措施简化和澄清分期系统解释中的模糊区域时,表现有所改善。