Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40022108›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2025

Inter-observer agreement in classifying anesthetic deaths in cats and dogs.

Eva Zoe Hernández-Magaña, Pablo E Otero, Jaime Viscasillas, Fernando Martínez-Taboada, Luis Doménech, José I Redondo

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Eva Zoe Hernández-MagañaDepartamento de Medicina y Cirugía Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain. eva.hernandezmagana@uchceu.es.
Pablo E OteroDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Pain Management, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Jaime ViscasillasAnicura Valencia Sur Hospital Veterinario, Valencia, Spain.
Fernando Martínez-TaboadaSydney School of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Luis DoménechDepartamento de Matemáticas, Física y Ciencias Tecnológicas, Escuela Superior de Enseñanzas Técnicas, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain.
José I RedondoDepartamento de Medicina y Cirugía Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain. nacho@uchceu.es.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Determining the cause of death in studies assessing mortality during small animal anesthesia poses challenges due to varying definitions of anesthetic death, limited information, and differences in evaluators' interpretations. This study aims to establish the interobserver agreement in classifying the cause of death in anesthetized animals. The observational, retrospective, multicenter study analyzed 432 deaths (83 cats and 349 dogs). Data were collected from a database of 55,022 anesthetized dogs and 14,962 anesthetized cats, created to investigate anesthetic-related mortality in these species. Three highly qualified veterinary anesthesiologists independently assessed whether the deaths were related to anesthesia, using their professional judgment. Data were collected from questionnaires that included the animal's signalment, reason for anesthesia, ASA status, drugs, anesthetic procedures, and comments from the submitting veterinarian. Light's Kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) measured interrater agreement among the three evaluators, while Cohen's Kappa assessed interrater reliability between pairs of observers (p < 0.05). Evaluators A, B, and C classified 296/432 (68.5%), 264/432 (61.1%), and 54/432 (12.5%) of the cases as anesthesia-related deaths, respectively. Agreement among the three evaluators was 128/432 (29.6%) [Light's Kappa: 0.17, p = 0.00026; ICC: 0.06, p-value = 0.0167]. The three evaluators agreed on classifying a death as anesthetic-related in 14.1% of cases (50 out of 354 cases where at least one evaluator classified the death as anesthetic-related). Similarly, for non-anesthetic-related deaths, the three evaluators reached an agreement in 20.4% of cases (78 out of 382 cases where at least one evaluator classified the death as non-anesthetic-related). Overall, agreement between two out of three evaluators was 304/432 (70.4%). Evaluators A and B had a 65.7% agreement [Cohen's Kappa: 0.25, p < 0.00001], A and C had a 46.6% agreement [Cohen's Kappa: 0.10, p < 0.00001], and B and C had a 50.9% agreement [Cohen's Kappa: 0.16, p < 0.00001]. In conclusion, the evaluators' agreement was weak, highlighting the need for a consensus on defining anesthetic mortality in dogs and cats.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnestheticsAnimalsCatsCause of DeathDogsFemaleMaleObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesAnestheticsAnesthesiaCanineConsensusFelineMortalityPerioperative complicationsStatistics

Identifiers

PMID40022108
PMCPMC11869720

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.