Several classification systems have been proposed for endometriosis but the search for the ideal system is ongoing. While the most commonly used system has historically been r-ASRM, this system is not fit for purpose, particularly for deep endometriosis. In order to explore strategies to devise a new system and learn from problems with the existing ones, this study was designed to assess the reproducibility of each component in r-ASRM and its total score using videotaped laparoscopic procedures. Two surgeons independently scored 64 edited videos of laparoscopic endometriosis procedure, twice. Using the Kappa statistic, the agreement of the scores given was analyzed. r-ASRM showed a moderate inter-observer agreement (ƙ = 0.503) and good intra-observer agreement (ƙ = 0.774 and 0.682 for scorer 1 and 2 respectively) for overall disease staging. The agreement for each component of the system, however, was highly variable. The least agreement was observed for the peritoneum with ƙ = 0.157 and ƙ = 0.362 respectively for inter-observer and intra-observer. The lowest intra-observer agreement was seen for cul-de-sac for scorer 2 (ƙ = 0.382). Whilst the overall rASRM shows acceptable agreement between two scorers, this agreement seems to be the product of inconsistent scoring for each component.

1. Roberts, CP, Rock, JA. The current staging system for endometriosis: does it help? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2003; 30(1): 115–32.
Google Scholar | Crossref2. Acosta, AA, Buttram, VC, Besch, PK, et al. A proposed classification of pelvic endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 1973; 42(1): 19–25.
Google Scholar | Medline3. Buttram, VC . Surgical treatment of endometriosis in the infertile female: a modified approach. Fertil Steril 1979; 32(6): 635–640.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline4. Hornstein, MD, Gleason, RE, Orav, J, et al. The reproducibility of the revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59(5): 1015–1021.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline5. Rock, JA . The revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis: reproducibility of scoring. ZOLADEX Endometriosis Study Group. Fertil Steril 1995; 63(5): 1108–1110.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline6. Buchweitz, O, Wulfing, P, Malik, E. Interobserver variability in the diagnosis of minimal and mild endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 122(2): 213–217.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline7. Weijenborg, PT, Ter Kuile, MM, Jansen, FW. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of videotaped laparoscopy evaluations for endometriosis and adhesions. Fertil Steril 2007; 87(2): 373–380.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline8. Stanford, JB, Schliep, KC, Chen, Z, et al. Comparability of endometriosis diagnosis and staging by operating surgeon and expert reviewer during real-time laparoscopy in the endo study. Fertil Steril 2012; 98(3): S216.
Google Scholar | Crossref9. Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–174.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline10. Lin, SY, Lee, RK, Hwu, YM, et al. Reproducibility of the revised American Fertility Society classification of endometriosis using laparoscopy or laparotomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1998; 60(3): 265–269.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline11. Whiting, P, Rutjes, AW, Reitsma, JB, et al. Sources of variation and bias in studies of diagnostic accuracy: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140(3): 189–202.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline