The study by Owens, Felts, and Spitznagel evaluated the consistency of the American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Physical Status Classification among 304 anesthesiologists. The classification, originally designed to standardize physical status categories for statistical studies and hospital records, was tested through a questionnaire asking anesthesiologists to classify ten hypothetical patients. Two hundred fifty-five respondents (77.3%) provided consistent ratings, with a mean of 5.9 patients rated identically. Four patients (16%) elicited wide ranges of responses, particularly those with age, obesity, previous myocardial infarction, and anemia. There was no significant regional variation in responses, but academic anesthesiologists rated more patients identically than those in private practice (P < 0.01). The use of the classification for billing purposes did not affect ratings. The study concluded that while the ASA Physical Status Classification is useful, it lacks scientific precision and faces challenges in categorizing certain conditions.The study by Owens, Felts, and Spitznagel evaluated the consistency of the American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) Physical Status Classification among 304 anesthesiologists. The classification, originally designed to standardize physical status categories for statistical studies and hospital records, was tested through a questionnaire asking anesthesiologists to classify ten hypothetical patients. Two hundred fifty-five respondents (77.3%) provided consistent ratings, with a mean of 5.9 patients rated identically. Four patients (16%) elicited wide ranges of responses, particularly those with age, obesity, previous myocardial infarction, and anemia. There was no significant regional variation in responses, but academic anesthesiologists rated more patients identically than those in private practice (P < 0.01). The use of the classification for billing purposes did not affect ratings. The study concluded that while the ASA Physical Status Classification is useful, it lacks scientific precision and faces challenges in categorizing certain conditions.