ISSN (print) 1726-9806     ISSN (online) 1818-474X
No. 2 (2022), SELECTED ISSUES IN ANESTHESIOLOGY
No. 2 (2022)
SELECTED ISSUES IN ANESTHESIOLOGY

Development and testing of the Russian version of Postoperative Quality of Recovery score — the QoR-40 and its short form — QoR-15

Published 29.04.2022
Tatiana P. Nikitina
Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8279-8129
A.Yu. Kulikov
Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-253X
A.A. Mishina
Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6906-8992
D.D. Sidorov
Saint Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-8421
T.I. Ionova
Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9431-5286
S.M. Efremov
Saint Petersburg State University Hospital, St. Petersburg, Russia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-9169
#2022-2
PDF_2022-2_132-142 (Russian)
HTML_2022-2_132-142 (Russian)
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S (Russian)
PDF_2022-2_132-142
HTML_2022-2_132-142
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S

Keywords

anesthesia
surgery
enhanced recovery after surgery
quality of life
questionnaire

How to Cite

Nikitina T.P., Kulikov A.Y., Mishina A.A., Sidorov D.D., Ionova T.I., Efremov S.M. Development and testing of the Russian version of Postoperative Quality of Recovery score — the QoR-40 and its short form — QoR-15. Annals of Critical Care. 2022;(2):132–142. doi:10.21320/1818-474X-2022-2-132-142.
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver AMA ГОСТ

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Statistics

Annotation views: 1784
PDF_2022-2_132-142 (Russian) downloads: 306
HTML_2022-2_132-142 (Russian) downloads: 385
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S (Russian) downloads: 48
PDF_2022-2_132-142 downloads: 118
HTML_2022-2_132-142 downloads: 190
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S downloads: 80

Language

English Русский

Most reader

Social Networks

Keywords

Abstract

INTRODUCTION. To assess the postoperative quality of recovery, patient-completed questionnaires are used in clinical practice and scientific research. OBJECTIVES. To create and test Russian versions of postoperative quality of recovery questionnaires QoR-40 and QoR-15. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Adult patients with thyroid pathology and hyperparathyroidism undergoing elective surgery were enrolled into the study. Linguistic and cultural adaptation were performed in accordance with international guidelines. The external validity of the Russian versions of the questionnaires was assessed upon the results of patients cognitive interviewing. Reliability, validity and sensitivity to changes in time of Russian versions of QoR-40 and QoR-15 were assessed. RESULTS. Overall 144 surgical patients were included in study. The external validity coefficient was 0.96 for QoR-40 and 0.94 for QoR-15. The differences in reproducibility were not significant (p > 0.05) for QoR-40 (180.5 and 184.9) and for QoR-15 (120.0 and 119.0). The Cronbach-α coefficient values were 0.92 (high internal consistency) and 0.89 (good internal consistency) for the QoR-40 and QoR-15 questionnaires, respectively. Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the Total score of the questionnaire and the Global recovery by VAS was 0.672 (p < 0.001) and 0.669 (p < 0.001) for QoR-40 and QoR-15, respectively. Patients with low level of postoperative recovery (< 70 scores according to VAS) had lower Total scores of QoR-40 and QoR-15, then patients with high postoperative recovery (≥ 70 by VAS): 165.2 vs 186.2; 98.1 vs 134.8 respectively (p < 0.001). Both tools are sensitive to changes in patients’ condition after surgery: Total scores of QoR-40 and QoR-15 were significantly lower after surgery as compared to baseline scores: 186.4 vs 181.1 by QoR-40 (p < 0.001), 133.8 vs 124.9 by QoR-15 (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS. The Russian versions of QoR-40 and QoR-15 are reliable, valid and sensitive tools for assessing the postoperative quality of patient recovery and may be used in both research studies and clinical practice.

PDF_2022-2_132-142 (Russian)
HTML_2022-2_132-142 (Russian)
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S (Russian)
PDF_2022-2_132-142
HTML_2022-2_132-142
HTML_2022-2_132-142-S

References

  1. Bowyer A., Jakobsson J., Ljungqvist O., Royse C. A review of the scope and measurement of postoperative quality of recovery. 2014; 69: 1266–78. DOI:10.1111/anae.12730
  2. Gornall B.F., Myles P.S., Smith C.L., et al. Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2013; 111(Issue 2): 161–9. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet014
  3. Myles P.S., Myles D.B., Galagher W., et al. Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales. Anesthesiology. 2016; 125: 39–45. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001158
  4. Venkatraghavan L., Li L., Bailey T., et al. Sumatriptan improves postoperative quality of recovery and reduces postcraniotomy headache after cranial nerve decompression. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 117(1): 73–9. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew152
  5. Ferraz S.M., Moreira J.P., Mendes L.C., et al. [Evaluation of the quality of recovery and the postoperative health status after elective surgery]. Braz J Anesthesiol (English Edition). 2018; 68(6): 577–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2018.06.002
  6. Myles P., Weitkamp B., Jones K., et al. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Br J Anaesth. 2000; 84: 11–5. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013366
  7. Stark P.A., Myles P.S., Burke J.A. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. 2013; 118(6): 1332–40. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
  8. Kleif J., Waage J., Christensen K.B., Gögenur I. Systematic review of the QoR-15 score, a patient-reported outcome measure measuring quality of recovery after surgery and anaesthesia. Br J 2018; 120(1): 28–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.11.013
  9. Wild D., Grove A., Martin M., et al. Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005; 8(2): 94–104. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
  10. McKown S., Acquadro C., Anfray C., et al. Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020; 4: 89. DOI: 10.1186/s41687-020-00248-z
  11. Ионова Т.И. Принципы языковой и культурной адаптации опросников оценки качества жизни. Вестн. Межнационального центра исследования качества жизни. 2018; 31–2: 12–7. [Ionova T.I. Principles of linguistic and cultural adaptation of quality of life questionnaires. Bulletin of the Multinational Center for Quality of Life Research. 2018; 31–2: 12–7 (In Russ)]
  12. Лихванцев В.В., Скрипкин Ю.В., Филипповская Ж.С., Жгулёв Д.А. Стандартизация осложнений и исходов оперативного лечения. Вестник анестезиологии и реаниматологии. 2015; 12(4): 53–66. [Likhvantsev V.V., Skripkin Yu.V., Filippovskaya Zh.S., Zhgulyov D.A. Standardization of complications and outcomes of surgery treatment. Messenger of Anesthesiology and Resuscitation. 2015; 12(4): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2015-12-4-53-66 (In Russ)]
  13. Сизоненко Н.А., Суров Д.А., Соловьев И.А. и др. Эволюция концепции ускоренного восстановления после операции: от истоков учения о стрессе до использования в неотложной хирургии (обзор литературы). Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова. 2018; 11: 71–9. DOI: 17116/hirurgia201811171 [Sizonenko N.A., Surov D.A., Solov‘ev I.A., et al. Evolution of enhanced recovery after surgery: from the beginning of the study of stress to the introduction in emergency surgery. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery = Khirurgiya. Zurnal im. N.I. Pirogova. 2018; 11: 71–9. DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia201811171 (In Russ)]
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2022 ANNALS OF CRITICAL CARE