Comparison of psoriasis area and severity index and physician’s global assessment in determining psoriasis severity

Objective: In clinical studies, it is crucial to assess psoriasis severity accurately and with no substantial variation between different raters. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) are the two most commonly used tools for the assessment of psoriasis severity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability of these methods and to determine whether inter-rater reliability is affected by rater experience. Design: An open uncontrolled study Setting: Dermatology Department of Ege University, Medical Faculty Subjects: Fifty-five patients with plaque psoriasis who were examined between 15 August 2012 and 15 November 2012 in the dermatology department of Ege University Interventions: Three dermatology residents with varying experience evaluated the patients individually using both the PASI and PGA for each patient (in that order). Main Outcome Measure: PASI and PGA Results: PASI and PGA scores showed high intra-rater correlation for all three residents. Inter-rater reliability for PASI was high between the most experienced and second most experienced resident and between the most experienced and least experienced resident. However, inter-rater reliability for PGA was high between the most experienced and second most experienced residents, but only moderate between the most experienced and least experienced resident. Conclusions: There were no significant interrater differences between PGA and PASI scores in our study. However, because PGA is more subjective and may be affected by rater experience, PASI is considered to be a more reliable method for assessing severity of psoriasis. © 2021, Kuwait Medical Association. All rights reserved

Body mass index and complications following major gastrointestinal surgery: A prospective, international cohort study and meta-analysis

Aim Previous studies reported conflicting evidence on the effects of obesity on outcomes after gastrointestinal surgery. The aims of this study were to explore the relationship of obesity with major postoperative complications in an international cohort and to present a metaanalysis of all available prospective data. Methods This prospective, multicentre study included adults undergoing both elective and emergency gastrointestinal resection, reversal of stoma or formation of stoma. The primary end-point was 30-day major complications (Clavien–Dindo Grades III–V). A systematic search was undertaken for studies assessing the relationship between obesity and major complications after gastrointestinal surgery. Individual patient meta-analysis was used to analyse pooled results. Results This study included 2519 patients across 127 centres, of whom 560 (22.2%) were obese. Unadjusted major complication rates were lower in obese vs normal weight patients (13.0% vs 16.2%, respectively), but this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.863) on multivariate analysis for patients having surgery for either malignant or benign conditions. Individual patient meta-analysis demonstrated that obese patients undergoing surgery formalignancy were at increased risk of major complications (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.49–2.96, P < 0.001), whereas obese patients undergoing surgery for benign indications were at decreased risk (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46–0.75, P < 0.001) compared to normal weight patients. Conclusions In our international data, obesity was not found to be associated with major complications following gastrointestinal surgery. Meta-analysis of available prospective data made a novel finding of obesity being associated with different outcomes depending on whether patients were undergoing surgery for benign or malignant disease