Measurement of quality of recovery after surgery using the 15-item quality of recovery scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:138
作者
Myles, Paul S. [1 ,2 ]
Shulman, Mark A. [1 ,2 ]
Reilly, Jennifer [1 ,2 ]
Kasza, Jessica [3 ]
Romero, Lorena [4 ]
机构
[1] Alfred Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol & Perioperat Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Monash Univ, Cent Clin Sch, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Biostat Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Alfred Hosp, Ian Potter Lib, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
anaesthesia; outcome; patient centred outcome measure; psychometrics; quality of life; recovery; surgery; validity; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; DISABILITY-FREE SURVIVAL; POSTOPERATIVE QUALITY; HEALTH-STATUS; PATIENT SATISFACTION; ENHANCED RECOVERY; GRADING QUALITY; END-POINTS; VALIDATION; VERSION;
D O I
10.1016/j.bja.2022.03.009
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: There are very few patient-centred global outcome measures of recovery in the days or weeks after surgery. This meta-analysis evaluated the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the 15-item quality of recovery (QoR-15) scale. Methods: We searched bibliographic databases for studies undertaking psychometric evaluation of the QoR-15 or using the QoR-15 as an outcome measure after surgery. Record screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were independently done by two researchers. Weighted averages estimating overall summary statistics across all the studies were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Pooled correlation coefficients were transformed using a Fisher z-transformation and then back-transformed to calculate pooled results. The four co-primary endpoints were validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical utility of the QoR-15 scale. Results: A total of 26 unique studies met the eligibility criteria, yielding up to 22 847 patients across 16 countries, in 15 languages. A further 172 studies in a further 18 countries and six languages used the QoR-15 as an outcome measure. The QoR-15 had excellent discriminant validity, with the mean difference in QoR-15 scores in patients with and without postoperative complications (9.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9-13.3; P<0.001), and good convergent validity (for a global visual analogue recovery scale, pooled r=0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.71). There was excellent reliability: internal consistency (pooled alpha=0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87), split-half reliability=0.80 (95% CI, 0.75e0.84), and testeretest reliability=0.97 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98). There was also high responsiveness (pooled standardised response mean=0.87; 95% CI, 0.65-1.08), patient recruitment into evaluation studies (96%; 95% CI, 93-99), and excellent completion and return rates (91%; 95% CI, 84-96). The mean time to complete the QoR-15 was 2.7 (95% CI, 2.2-3.1) min. Conclusions: The QoR-15 is a valid, reliable, and responsive patient-centred outcome metric in surgical patients. It is highly acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Registration: Open Science Framework Identifier: DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/78HTA.
引用
收藏
页码:1029 / 1039
页数:11
相关论文
共 60 条
[1]   A prospective clinical audit to evaluate postoperative quality of recovery in adults at New Somerset Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa [J].
Ally, M. A. ;
Cloete, E. ;
Reed, A. R. .
SAMJ SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 110 (10) :1036-1040
[2]  
Atkins D, 2004, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V328, P1490
[3]   Influence of quality of recovery on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery: a prospective observational cohort study [J].
Berning, V. ;
Laupheimer, M. ;
Nubling, M. ;
Heidegger, T. .
ANAESTHESIA, 2017, 72 (09) :1088-1096
[4]  
Borenstein M, 2009, INTRO META ANAL, V1st
[5]   Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale [J].
Bu, Xue-Shan ;
Zhang, Jing ;
Zuo, Yun-Xia .
PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH, 2016, 9 (03) :251-259
[6]   Measuring quality of recovery-15 after day case surgery [J].
Chazapis, M. ;
Walker, E. M. K. ;
Rooms, M. A. ;
Kamming, D. ;
Moonesinghe, S. R. .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2016, 116 (02) :241-248
[7]   Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection [J].
Corcoran, Tomas B. ;
Myles, Paul S. ;
Forbes, Andrew B. ;
Cheng, Allen C. ;
Bach, Leon A. ;
O'Loughlin, Edmond ;
Leslie, Kate ;
Chan, Matthew T., V ;
Story, David ;
Short, Timothy G. ;
Martin, Catherine ;
Coutts, Pauline ;
Ho, Kwok M. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2021, 384 (18) :1731-1741
[8]   Validation of the translated Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire in a French-speaking population [J].
Demumieux, Francois ;
Ludes, Pierre-Olivier ;
Diemunsch, Pierre ;
Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott ;
Lujic, Marko ;
Lefebvre, Francois ;
Noll, Eric .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA, 2020, 124 (06) :761-767
[9]   METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS [J].
DERSIMONIAN, R ;
LAIRD, N .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03) :177-188
[10]   Development of a measure of patient satisfaction with monitored anesthesia care - The Iowa satisfaction with anesthesia scale [J].
Dexter, F ;
Aker, J ;
Wright, WA .
ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1997, 87 (04) :865-873