Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales

Author:

Myles Paul S.1,Myles Daniel B.1,Galagher Wendy1,Chew Colleen1,MacDonald Neil1,Dennis Alicia1

Affiliation:

1. From the Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (P.S.M.); Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (D.B.M.); Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (W.G., C.C.); Department of Anaesthesia and P

Abstract

Abstract Background Several quality of recovery (QoR) health status scales have been developed to quantify the patient’s experience after anesthesia and surgery, but to date, it is unclear what constitutes the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). That is, what minimal change in score would indicate a meaningful change in a patient’s health status? Methods The authors enrolled a sequential, unselected cohort of patients recovering from surgery and used three QoR scales (the 9-item QoR score, the 15-item QoR-15, and the 40-item QoR-40) to quantify a patient’s recovery after surgery and anesthesia. The authors compared changes in patient QoR scores with a global rating of change questionnaire using an anchor-based method and three distribution-based methods (0.3 SD, standard error of the measurement, and 5% range). The authors then averaged the change estimates to determine the MCID for each QoR scale. Results The authors enrolled 204 patients at the first postoperative visit, and 199 were available for a second interview; a further 24 patients were available at the third interview. The QoR scores improved significantly between the first two interviews. Triangulation of distribution- and anchor-based methods results in an MCID of 0.92, 8.0, and 6.3 for the QoR score, QoR-15, and QoR-40, respectively. Conclusion Perioperative interventions that result in a change of 0.9 for the QoR score, 8.0 for the QoR-15, or 6.3 for the QoR-40 signify a clinically important improvement or deterioration.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Reference37 articles.

1. Measuring anaesthetic outcomes.;Anaesth Intensive Care,1996

2. Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults.;Anesth Analg,1999

3. Meaningful outcome measures in cardiac surgery.;J Extra Corpor Technol,2014

4. Measurement of disability-free survival after surgery.;Anesthesiology,2015

5. Patient reported outcome measures in practice.;BMJ,2015

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3