Owens W D, Felts J A, Spitznagel E L
Anesthesiology. 1978 Oct;49(4):239-43. doi: 10.1097/00000542-197810000-00003.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Physical Status Classification was tested for consistency of use by a questionnaire sent to 304 anesthesiologists. They were requested to classify ten hypothetical patients. Two hundred fifty-five (77.3 percent) responded to two mailings. The mean number of patients rated consistently was 5.9. Four patients elicited wide ranges of responses. Age, obesity, previous myocardial infarction, and anemia provoked controversy. There was no significant difference in responses from different regions of the country. Academic anesthesiologists rated a greater number identical than did those in private practice (P less than 0.01). There was no difference in ratings between those who used the classification for billing purposes and those who did not. The ASA Physical Status Classification is useful but suffers from a lack of scientific precision.
通过向304名麻醉医生发送问卷,对美国麻醉医师协会(ASA)的身体状况分类使用的一致性进行了测试。要求他们对十名假设患者进行分类。经过两次邮件发送,255名(77.3%)做出了回应。被一致评级的患者平均数量为5.9名。有四名患者引发了广泛的不同回应。年龄、肥胖、既往心肌梗死和贫血引发了争议。来自该国不同地区的回应没有显著差异。学术麻醉医生给出相同评级的患者数量比私人执业麻醉医生更多(P小于0.01)。将该分类用于计费目的的医生和不用于计费目的的医生在评级上没有差异。ASA身体状况分类是有用的,但缺乏科学精确性。