PMID- 27159009
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20170531
LR  - 20220311
IS  - 1528-1175 (Electronic)
IS  - 0003-3022 (Linking)
VI  - 125
IP  - 1
DP  - 2016 Jul
TI  - Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Three Quality of Recovery Scales.
PG  - 39-45
LID - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001158 [doi]
AB  - 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.
FAU - Myles, Paul S
AU  - Myles PS
AD  - 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 Perioperative Medicine, Alfred Hospital, and Royal Women's Hospital, Carlton, 
      Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (N.M.); and Department of Anaesthesia, Royal 
      Women's Hospital, Parkville, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (A.D.).
FAU - Myles, Daniel B
AU  - Myles DB
FAU - Galagher, Wendy
AU  - Galagher W
FAU - Chew, Colleen
AU  - Chew C
FAU - MacDonald, Neil
AU  - MacDonald N
FAU - Dennis, Alicia
AU  - Dennis A
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Observational Study
PL  - United States
TA  - Anesthesiology
JT  - Anesthesiology
JID - 1300217
SB  - IM
CIN - Anesthesiology. 2016 Jul;125(1):7-10. PMID: 27159008
MH  - Adult
MH  - Aged
MH  - Aged, 80 and over
MH  - Algorithms
MH  - Anesthesia/*standards/*statistics & numerical data
MH  - *Anesthesia Recovery Period
MH  - Cohort Studies
MH  - Female
MH  - Health Status
MH  - Humans
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - *Minimal Clinically Important Difference
MH  - Reference Standards
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Surveys and Questionnaires
MH  - Young Adult
EDAT- 2016/05/10 06:00
MHDA- 2017/06/01 06:00
CRDT- 2016/05/10 06:00
PHST- 2016/05/10 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2016/05/10 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2017/06/01 06:00 [medline]
AID - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001158 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Anesthesiology. 2016 Jul;125(1):39-45. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001158.