J Kleif1, J Waage2, K B Christensen3, I Gögenur4. 1. Department of Surgery, North Zealand Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Dyrehavevej 29, 3400 Hillerød, Denmark. Electronic address: jakobkleif@icloud.com. 2. Department of Surgery, North Zealand Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Dyrehavevej 29, 3400 Hillerød, Denmark. 3. Section of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Department of Surgery, Center for Surgical Science, Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The QoR-15 is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures the quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the measurement properties of the QoR-15. METHODS: Studies reporting measurement properties or interpretability of the QoR-15 after surgery were eligible for inclusion. All languages were included in the PubMed and Embase search. The COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measurements were followed. Criteria for good measurement properties outlined in the consensus-based guidelines for selecting outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials were applied. A metaanalysis and synthesis of data across studies was performed. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-three titles were identified, and six articles were included in the study. The study population comprised 1548 patients undergoing a variety of surgical elective procedures. The QoR-15 was validated in English, Danish, Chinese, and Portuguese. High-quality evidence for good content validity, good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.836), and essential unidimensionality of the QoR-15 as a measurement of postoperative quality of recovery was found. There was at least moderate-quality evidence of good reliability of the QoR-15 (intraclass correlation of 0.989) and good error of measurement (standard error of measurement of 1.85). The upper 95% confidence limit of the smallest detectable change was 3.63, and the minimal clinical important difference was 8.0. CONCLUSIONS: The QoR-15 fulfils requirements for outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials and is the first measurement instrument of postoperative quality of recovery to undergo a systematic review according to the COSMIN checklist.
BACKGROUND: The QoR-15 is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire that measures the quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the measurement properties of the QoR-15. METHODS: Studies reporting measurement properties or interpretability of the QoR-15 after surgery were eligible for inclusion. All languages were included in the PubMed and Embase search. The COSMIN guidelines for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measurements were followed. Criteria for good measurement properties outlined in the consensus-based guidelines for selecting outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials were applied. A metaanalysis and synthesis of data across studies was performed. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-three titles were identified, and six articles were included in the study. The study population comprised 1548 patients undergoing a variety of surgical elective procedures. The QoR-15 was validated in English, Danish, Chinese, and Portuguese. High-quality evidence for good content validity, good internal consistency (Cronbach's α of 0.836), and essential unidimensionality of the QoR-15 as a measurement of postoperative quality of recovery was found. There was at least moderate-quality evidence of good reliability of the QoR-15 (intraclass correlation of 0.989) and good error of measurement (standard error of measurement of 1.85). The upper 95% confidence limit of the smallest detectable change was 3.63, and the minimal clinical important difference was 8.0. CONCLUSIONS: The QoR-15 fulfils requirements for outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials and is the first measurement instrument of postoperative quality of recovery to undergo a systematic review according to the COSMIN checklist.
Authors: Meg E Morris; Victoria Atkinson; Jeffrey Woods; Paul S Myles; Anita Hodge; Cathy H Jones; Damien Lloyd; Vincent Rovtar; Amanda M Clifford; Natasha K Brusco Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Melanie Subramanian; Benjamin D Kozower; Lisa M Brown; Onkar V Khullar; Felix G Fernandez Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Margot E Lodge; Chris Moran; Adam D J Sutton; Hui-Ching Lee; Jugdeep K Dhesi; Nadine E Andrew; Darshini R Ayton; David J Hunter-Smith; Velandai K Srikanth; David A Snowdon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Stefan Schraag; Lorenzo Pradelli; Abdul Jabbar Omar Alsaleh; Marco Bellone; Gianni Ghetti; Tje Lin Chung; Martin Westphal; Sebastian Rehberg Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Daan Geerards; Lisa van den Berg; Andrea L Pusic; Maarten M Hoogbergen; Anne F Klassen; René R W J van der Hulst; Chris J Sidey-Gibbons Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 4.147