Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJoost van der Wolf Modified over 5 years ago
1
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 (April 2006) DOI: /j.jvs Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
2
Fig 1 Infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm segments (Eurostar worksheet). Journal of Vascular Surgery , DOI: ( /j.jvs ) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
3
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 , DOI: ( /j.jvs ) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
4
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 , DOI: ( /j.jvs ) Copyright © 2006 The Society for Vascular Surgery Terms and Conditions
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.