BACKGROUND: General, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires and recovery-specific questionnaires have been used to measure recovery in surgical patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of 3 recovery instruments and to examine whether recovery-specific instruments are useful. METHODS: The Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40), Recovery Index-10 (RI-10), and RAND-36 health survey were used to measure recovery in women undergoing different types of hysterectomy in the first 12 weeks after operation. Construct validity was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses. The changes observed during the postoperative period were used as indicators for responsiveness. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one women were included. Response rate and internal consistency were found satisfactory. The highest number of hypotheses used for assessment of construct validity was confirmed in the RI-10. The RI-10 was more responsive compared with the QoR-40 and the RAND-36. CONCLUSIONS: Because construct validity and responsiveness were greatest in the RI-10, we conclude that this short recovery-specific instrument is useful in studies evaluating postoperative recovery. We recommend the use of the RI-10, unless the immediate postoperative days are of interest in which the QoR-40 was valid.
BACKGROUND: General, health-related quality-of-life questionnaires and recovery-specific questionnaires have been used to measure recovery in surgical patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinimetric properties of 3 recovery instruments and to examine whether recovery-specific instruments are useful. METHODS: The Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40), Recovery Index-10 (RI-10), and RAND-36 health survey were used to measure recovery in women undergoing different types of hysterectomy in the first 12 weeks after operation. Construct validity was assessed by testing predefined hypotheses. The changes observed during the postoperative period were used as indicators for responsiveness. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one women were included. Response rate and internal consistency were found satisfactory. The highest number of hypotheses used for assessment of construct validity was confirmed in the RI-10. The RI-10 was more responsive compared with the QoR-40 and the RAND-36. CONCLUSIONS: Because construct validity and responsiveness were greatest in the RI-10, we conclude that this short recovery-specific instrument is useful in studies evaluating postoperative recovery. We recommend the use of the RI-10, unless the immediate postoperative days are of interest in which the QoR-40 was valid.
Authors: Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Akeel H H Alhafidh; Robert A Hakvoort; Mark E Vierhout; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Roshni Alam; Sabrina M Figueiredo; Saba Balvardi; Bénédicte Nauche; Tara Landry; Lawrence Lee; Nancy E Mayo; Liane S Feldman; Julio F Fiore Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Judith A F Huirne; Hans A M Brölmann; Mark H Emanuel; Paul J M van Kesteren; Gunilla Kleiverda; Jos P Lips; Alexander Mozes; Andreas L Thurkow; Willem van Mechelen; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMJ Date: 2015-07-23
Authors: Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Marlies Bongers; Geerte van de Pol; Astrid Vollebregt; Celine M Radder; Jan Deprest; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2014-09-17 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Hans A M Brölmann; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; David J Bruinvels; Riekie H C de Vet; Amarantha A Dirksz; Judith A F Huirne Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Denise M D Özdemir-van Brunschot; Gert J Scheffer; Albert Dahan; Janneke E E A Mulder; Simone A A Willems; Luuk B Hilbrands; Frank C H d'Ancona; Rogier A R T Donders; Kees J H M van Laarhoven; Michiel C Warlé Journal: Trials Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Esther Va Bouwsma; Johannes R Anema; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Dirk L Knol; Judith E Bosmans; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Paul Jm van Kesteren; W Marchien van Baal; Jos P Lips; Mark H Emanuel; Petrus C Scholten; Alexander Mozes; Albert H Adriaanse; Hans Am Brölmann; Judith Af Huirne Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-06-18