Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments

Background Postoperative recovery is a considerable issue in studies comparing operative techniques of similar effectiveness. In recent years, a shift has occurred toward patient-centered study outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires. The objective of this article is to provide a systematic...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Surgery 2008-02, Vol.143 (2), p.206-215
Main Authors: Kluivers, Kirsten B., MD, Riphagen, Ingrid, MSc, Vierhout, Mark E., MD, PhD, Brölmann, Hans A.M., MD, PhD, de Vet, Henrica C.W., PhD
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
General aspects
Health Status
Humans
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Postoperative Period
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Quality of Life
Reproducibility of Results
Surgery
Surgical Procedures, Operative
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Postoperative recovery is a considerable issue in studies comparing operative techniques of similar effectiveness. In recent years, a shift has occurred toward patient-centered study outcomes such as quality-of-life questionnaires. The objective of this article is to provide a systematic review of the literature on general postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments and their measurement properties. Methods We searched the databases EMBASE.com , Cinahl, PsycINFO, and PubMed for articles reporting on postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. A checklist was used to assess the revealed studies and instruments. Existing quality criteria were applied to the measurement properties to compare the instruments. Results The search strategy identified 620 studies, of which 18 studies reported on 12 different postoperative, recovery-specific quality-of-life instruments. None of the instruments had been validated completely in line with the 8 quality criteria, which were used to assess the measurement properties. Two instruments were clearly superior, which were the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40. Conclusions No fully validated instrument is available for the assessment of general postoperative recovery. We advise to use the Postdischarge surgical recovery scale and the Quality of recovery-40 in future validation and application studies on short-term postoperative recovery.
ISSN:0039-6060
1532-7361
DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2007.08.017