Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2026
Mind the gap: a prospective observational study of interprofessional differences in ASA-PS assessments between surgeons and anaesthesiologists.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02995499 (Inter-rater Reliability of the ASA Classification), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Inter-rater Reliability of the ASA Classification
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system is the most widely used tool for estimating perioperative risk. Despite its widespread application, the ASA-PS is based solely on the subjective assessment of the patient’s clinical condition and comorbidities, which leads to considerable inter-rater variability. The aim of this study was to investigate interprofessional differences in ASA-PS scoring between surgeons and anaesthesiologists.
methodsThis prospective observational study involved patients who were scheduled for elective or emergency surgery. The patients were independently evaluated using the ASA-PS classification by treating anaesthesiologists and surgeons with varying levels of experience. Following data collection, an interdisciplinary board comprising senior anaesthesiologists and surgeons retrospectively assigned reference ASA-PS scores. Inter-rater agreement was analysed using Cohen’s kappa (κ).
resultsIn total, 684 were included in the study. Surgeons assigned lower ASA-PS classes more frequently, with 16.81% of ratings corresponding to ASA-PS I and 52.05% to ASA-PS II, compared to 6.29% vs. 40.50% among anaesthesiologists. In contrast, anaesthesiologists more often classified patients as ASA-PS III (50.88%), than surgeons (28.51%). Agreement with the reference board was higher among anaesthesiologists (κ = 0.36) than among surgeons (κ = 0.21). The interprofessional agreement between surgeons and anaesthesiologists was low (κ = 0.25), which highlights the significant variability in clinical judgment between disciplines. ASA-PS assessments were more frequently performed by residents among surgeons than among anaesthesiologists (90.35% vs. 69.74%; p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe findings underscore the substantial inter-rater variability in ASA-PS scoring between surgical and anaesthesiological teams. While ASA-PS classification of ≥III remain clinically relevant and is widely used as a predictor for perioperative risk, the observed discrepancies may affect risk stratification in clinical practice. As most of ASA-PS assessments, especially in the surgeon group, were performed by residents, these results highlight the importance of structured training, and potentially supplementary objective tools to improve consistency and reliability in preoperative risk assessment.
trial registrationThe study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT02995499) and the German Clinical Trial register (No. 00011311, 12/2016).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.