Consistency in endovascular aneurysm repair suitability assessment requires group decision audit Steffan G.J. Rödel, MD, MSc, Robert H. Geelkerken, MD, PhD, Joost A.van Herwaarden, MD, Eelco E. Kunst, MSc, PhD, Jos C.van den Berg, MD, PhD, Job van der Palen, MSc, PhD, Joep A.W. Teijink, MD, PhD, Frans L. Moll, MD, PhD Journal of Vascular Surgery Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 671-676 (April 2006) DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2005.11.055 Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
Fig 1 Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm segments (Eurostar worksheet). Journal of Vascular Surgery 2006 43, 671-676DOI: (10.1016/j.jvs.2005.11.055) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
Fig 2 The suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair is divided in five categories: 0 to 49 (high to intermediate suitable); 50 to 94 (intermediate to low suitable); 95 to 98 (very low suitable), 99 (practically not suitable), 100 (not suitable). Journal of Vascular Surgery 2006 43, 671-676DOI: (10.1016/j.jvs.2005.11.055) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
Fig 3 Consistency and variance of assessments between individual clinicians. Example of a high consistency in decision making but also and high variance in suitability estimation per assessment between A, B, C, D, and E. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2006 43, 671-676DOI: (10.1016/j.jvs.2005.11.055) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions