Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

Objective The aim of the study was to evaluate the agreement between the weight of older adults measured on a chair scale and a platform scale. Methods This is a cross-sectional study. We evaluated 131 older adults (?60 years old), walk-in patients, admitted to a university hospital. Weight was measured on a digital chair scale model MS5811 (Charder® brand) and after on a mechanical platform scale (Filizola® brand). For the agreement analysis, the intraclass correlation coefficient and the Bland-Altman plot were used. Results Most of the sample consisted of males individuals (57.3%; n= 75). The average age was 70.47±7.59 years (60-96 years old). Measured by both methods, weight showed normal distribution. The average weight measured was 67.99±14.03 kg on the chair scale and 68.04±14.02 kg on the platform scale. The intraclass correlation coefficient of weight measured by the two methods was 1.00 (IC95%=1.00-1.00; p<0.001). In the Bland-Altman plot, the mean bias for the weight measured on the chair scale and the platform scale was 0.049 (IC95%=-0.011 to 0.110; p=0.1084). Conclusions The agreement between the weight measured on a chair scale and on a platform scale was almost excellent. Thus, the chair scale can be used as an alternative method of measuring weight, especially in the older adults with postural instability, mobility restrictions or immobility syndrome.