Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 420

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Development and Psychometric Testing of a Quality of Recovery Score After General Anesthesia and Surgery in Adults

Myles, Paul S., Hunt, Jennifer O., Nightingale, Claire E., Fletcher, Helen, Beh, Terence, Tanil, Deral, Nagy, Attila, Rubinstein, Alan, Ponsford, Jennie L.·1999·Anesthesia & Analgesia

Abstract

UNLABELLED: A variety of methods have been used to quantify aspects of recovery after anesthesia. Most are narrowly focused, are not patient-rated, and have not been validated. We therefore set out to develop a patient-rated quality of recovery score. We constructed a 61-item questionnaire that asked individuals (patients and relatives, medical and nursing staff; total n = 136) to rate various postoperative items describing features a patient may experience postoperatively. The most highly ranked items were included in a final nine-point index score, which we called the "QoR Score." We then studied two cohorts of surgical patients (n = 449). There was good convergent validity between the QoR Score and the visual analog scale score (rho = 0.55, P < 0.0001). Discriminant construct validity was supported by comparing resultant QoR Scores in patients undergoing day-stay, minor, and major surgery (P = 0.008), as well as a negative correlation with duration of hospital stay (rho = -0.20, P < 0.0001), and, using multivariate regression, demonstrating a significant negative relationship between QoR Score and female gender (P = 0.048) and older age (P = 0.041). There was also good interrater agreement (rho = 0.55, P < 0.0001), test-retest reliability (median rho = 0.61, P < 0.0001), and internal consistency (alpha = 0.57 and 0.90, P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference between the groups of patients recovering from major and minor surgery (P < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the QoR Score has good validity, reliability, and clinical acceptability in patients undergoing many types of surgery. IMPLICATIONS: We set out to develop a patient-rated quality of recovery score (QoR) that could be used both as a measure of outcome in perioperative trials and for clinical audit. We first surveyed patients and staff to identify important aspects of recovery, then developed a nine-point QoR Score. This was then compared with other measures of postoperative outcome. We found that the QoR Score is a useful measure of recovery after anesthesia and surgery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00000539-199901000-00016

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Myles, P. S., Hunt, J. O., Nightingale, C. E., Fletcher, H., Beh, T., Tanil, D., Nagy, A., Rubinstein, A., & Ponsford, J. L.
Venue
Anesthesia & Analgesia
Published
1999-01
Volume
88
Issue
1
Pages
83-90
ISSN
0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012918700
Cited by
420
References
2
FWCI
10.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.