title: Interobserver variability when employing the IUGA/ICS classification system for complications related to prostheses and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To unify and organize reporting, an International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) expert consortium published terminology guidelines with a classification system for complications related to implants used in female pelvic surgery. We hypothesize that the complexity of the codification system may be a hindrance to precision, especially with decreasing levels of postgraduate expertise.
  
  
  METHODS
  Residents, fellows, and attending physicians were asked to code seven test cases taken from published literature. Category, timing, and site components of the classification system were assessed independently and according to the level of training. Interobserver reliability was calculated as percent agreement and Fleiss' kappa statistic.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 24 participants (6 attending physicians, 3 fellows, and 15 residents) were tested. The percent agreement showed significant variation when classified by level of training. In all categories, attending physicians had the greatest percentage agreement and largest kappa. The most agreement was seen when attending physicians classified mesh complications by time, 71% agreement with kappa 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-0.88]. For the same task, the percentage agreement for fellows was 57%, kappa 0.55 (95% CI 0.23-0.87) and with residents 57%, kappa 0.71([95% CI 0.64-0.78). Interestingly, the site component of the classification system had the least overall agreement and lowest kappa [0%, kappa 0.29 (95% CI 0.26-0.32)] followed by the category component [14%, kappa 0.48 (95% CI 0.46-0.5)].
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The IUGA/ICS mesh complication classification system has poor interobserver reliability. This trended downward with decreasing postgraduate level; however, we did not have sufficient statistical power to show an association when stratifying by all training levels. This highlights the complex nature of the classification system in its current form and its limitation for widespread clinical and research application.
authors.affiliation: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, B-1100 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN, 37232, USA, meghanagowda@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Meghana
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gowda
authors.forename: Laura Chang
authors.initials: LC
authors.lastname: Kit
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Stuart Reynolds
authors.forename: Li
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.forename: Roger R
authors.initials: RR
authors.lastname: Dmochowski
authors.forename: Melissa R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Kaufman
mesh_terms: D002965:Classification / Q000379:methods*; D015331:Cohort Studies; D005260:Female; D013509:Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; D006801:Humans; D007390:International Agencies; D007396:Internship and Residency; D015588:Observer Variation; D059952:Pelvic Floor Disorders / Q000601:surgery*; D010820:Physicians; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000145:classification*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D019736:Prostheses and Implants / Q000009:adverse effects*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013526:Surgical Mesh / Q000009:adverse effects*; D009626:Terminology as Topic
references.citation: J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007 Oct;33(5):739-42
references.pmid: 17845341
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):501-6
references.pmid: 9083302
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 May;206(5):442.e1-6
references.pmid: 22542121
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Aug;118(2 Pt 2):451-454
references.pmid: 21768851
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;108(3 Pt 2):720-3
references.pmid: 17018477
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):367-73
references.pmid: 19155908
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;111(4):969-75
references.pmid: 18378758
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Jan;22(1):3-15
references.pmid: 21140130
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Sep;108(3 Pt 2):713-5
references.pmid: 17018474
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 2):489-491
references.pmid: 19622973
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J. 2011 Nov;22(11):1445-57
references.pmid: 21927941
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 2):443-445
references.pmid: 19622954