The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Postoperative Quality of Recovery Score: The QoR-15
Open accessAbstract
Background: Quality of recovery (QoR) after anesthesia is an important measure of the early postoperative health status of patients. The aim was to develop a short-form postoperative QoR score, and test its validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical acceptability and feasibility. Methods: Based on extensive clinical and research experience with the 40-item QoR-40, the strongest psychometrically performing items from each of the five dimensions of the QoR-40 were selected to create a short-form version, the QoR-15. This was then evaluated in 127 adult patients after general anesthesia and surgery. Results: There was good convergent validity between the QoR-15 and a global QoR visual analog scale (r = 0.68, P < 0.0005). Construct validity was supported by a negative correlation with duration of surgery (r = −0.49, P < 0.0005), time spent in the postanesthesia care unit (r = −0.41, P < 0.0005), and duration of hospital stay (r = −0.53, P < 0.0005). There was also excellent internal consistency (0.85), split-half reliability (0.78), and test–retest reliability (r i = 0.99), all P < 0.0005. Responsiveness was excellent with an effect size of 1.35 and a standardized response mean of 1.04. The mean ± SD time to complete the QoR-15 was 2.4 ± 0.8min. Conclusions: The QoR-15 provides a valid, extensive, and yet efficient evaluation of postoperative QoR.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
(1965) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(65)91037-8 · Cited by 16,856
Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A. W. M., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. W. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 · Cited by 10,764
Donabedian, A. (1988) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.260.12.1743 · Cited by 5,895
Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement
Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001 · Cited by 5,220
Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires
McDowell, I., & Newell, C. (1987) · Cited by 4,207
Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015 · Cited by 2,401
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials.
Fitzpatrick, Davey, Buxton, & Jones (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2140 · Cited by 1,715
Cited by
Temple-Oberle, C., Shea-Budgell, M. A., Tan, M., Semple, J. L., Schrag, C., Barreto, M., Blondeel, P., Hamming, J., Dayan, J., & Ljungqvist, O. (2017) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000003242 · Cited by 361
Mao, Y., Guo, J., Yuan, J., Zhao, E., & Yang, J. (2022) · Drug Design, Development and Therapy · doi:10.2147/dddt.s359496 · Cited by 122
Jaensson, M., Dahlberg, K., Eriksson, M., Grönlund, Å., & Nilsson, U. (2015) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/mhealth.4649 · Cited by 59
“In line with Stark et al [25], the scaling properties and options of obtaining verbal numerical responses would be easy to understand for the patients.”
Bojesen, R. D., Dalton, S. O., Skou, S. T., Jørgensen, L. B., Walker, L. R., Eriksen, J. R., Grube, C., Justesen, T. F., Johansen, C., Slooter, G., et al. (2023) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad134 · Cited by 53
Miles, L. F., Pac Soo, V., Braat, S., Bade-Boon, J., Heritier, S., Klein, A. A., Myles, P. S., Richards, T., Symons, J., Burbury, K. L., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Haematology · doi:10.1016/s2352-3026(22)00142-9 · Cited by 32
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stark, P. A., Myles, P. S., & Burke, J. A.
- Venue
- Anesthesiology
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 118
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1332-1340
- ISSN
- 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985746834
- Cited by
- 962
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Postoperative Quality of Recovery Score: The QoR-15. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aln.0b013e318289b84b
- The paper
- Stark, P. A., Myles, P. S., & Burke, J. A. (2013). Development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Postoperative Quality of Recovery Score: The QoR-15. Anesthesiology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0b013e318289b84b
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.
