Evidence Hub

Interobserver Variability in the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)-Defined Complications After Pancreatoduodenectomy

T. Hendriks, A. Balduzzi, S. van Dieren, J. A. Suurmeijer, R. Salvia, T. Stoop, M. Del Chiaro, S. Mieog et al.

Annals of Surgery, 2024

390 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Objective: To determine the interobserver variability for complications of pancreatoduodenectomy as defined by the International Study Group for Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) and others. Background: Good interobserver variability for the definitions of surgical complications is of major importance in comparing surgical outcomes between and within centers. However, data on interobserver variability for pancreatoduodenectomy-specific complications are lacking. Methods: International cross-sectional multicenter study including 52 raters from 13 high-volume pancreatic centers in 8 countries on 3 continents. Per center, 4 experienced raters scored 30 randomly selected patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. In addition, all raters scored 6 standardized case vignettes. This variability and the “within centers” variability were calculated for 2-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B/C) and 3-fold scoring (no complication/grade A vs grade B vs grade C) of postoperative pancreatic fistula, postpancreatoduodenectomy hemorrhage, chyle leak, bile leak, and delayed gastric emptying. Interobserver variability is presented with Gwet AC-1 measure for agreement. Results: Overall, 390 patients after pancreatoduodenectomy were included. The overall agreement rate for the standardized cases vignettes for 2-fold scoring was 68% (95% CI: 55%–81%, AC1 score: moderate agreement), and for 3-fold scoring 55% (49%–62%, AC1 score: fair agreement). The mean “within centers” agreement for 2-fold…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 390 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free