Sami EKSERT, Mehmet Burak EŞKİN, Serkan ŞENKAL, Umut KARA, Fatih ŞİMŞEK, Mehmet Özgür ÖZHAN, Mehmet Emin İNCE, Gökhan ÖZKAN, Ümit ALAKUŞ, Hasan KAMBUROĞLU

Linguistic validation of a widely used recovery score: quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15)

Background/aim: The quality of recovery-15 (QoR-15) is a patient reported outcome questionnaire that measures the quality of recovery after surgery and anesthesia. The QoR-15 has been validated in many languages; Turkish version of the QoR-15 has not yet been established. The aims of this study were to translate the QoR-15 questionnaire into Turkish and to perform a full psychometric evaluation of the Turkish version. Materials and methods: After translating the original English version of the QoR-15 scale into Turkish, the QoR-15T scale was psychometrically validated. This process included validity, reliability, responsiveness, feasibility. The QoR-15T was evaluated before the surgery and 24 h after surgery. Results: A total of 210 patients completed the pre- and postoperative questionnaires, providing a completion rate of 93.75%. The correlation coefficient between QoR-15T score and VAS score was 0.644 on postoperative day 1 (p < 0.001). Inter item Cronbach’s alpha was 0.863. Global test-retest concordance coefficient was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.94–1.00). Conclusion: The QoR-15T scale is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating postoperative quality of recovery in Turkish speaking patients. The psychometric characteristics used to assess postoperative quality of recovery were similar to those in the English version.

PDF

___

1. Myles PS, Williams DL, Hendrata M, Anderson H, Weeks AM. Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2000; 84 (1): 6-10. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals. bja.a013383
2. Herrera FJ, Wong J, Chung F. A systematic review of postoperative recovery outcomes measurements after ambulatory surgery. Anesthesia Analgesia 2007; 105 (1): 63– 69. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000265534.73169.95
3. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE, Fletcher H, Beh T et al. Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesthesia Analgesia 1999; 88 (1): 83-90. doi: 10.1097/00000539- 199901000-00016
4. Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2000; 84 (1): 11-15. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bja.a013366
5. Karaman S, Arici S, Dogru S, Karaman T, Tapar H et al. Validation of the Turkish version of the Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2014; 12:8. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-12-8
6. Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology 2013; 118 (6): 1332-1340. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318289b84b
7. Nakatani S, Ida M, Tanaka Y, Okamoto N, Wang X et al. Translation and validation of the Japanese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Questionnaire. Journal of Anesthesia 2021; 35 (3): 426-433. doi: 10.1007/s00540-021-02921-z
8. Picconi E, Iacobucci T, Adducci E, Gualtieri E, Beccia G et al. Translation and validation of the Italian version of the postoperative quality of recovery score QoR-15. Minerva Anestesiologica 2020; 86 (7): 787-789. doi: 10.23736/S0375- 9393.20.14472-9
9. Demumieux F, Ludes PO, Diemunsch P, Bennett-Guerrero E, Lujic M et al. Validation of the translated Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire in a French-speaking population. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2020; 124 (6): 761-767. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.011
10. Kim D, Kim JK, Yeo J. Translation and Validation of the Korean Version of the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Score QoR-15. BioMed Research International 2020; 3456234. doi: 10.1155/2020/3456234
11. Bu XS, Zhang J, Zuo YX. Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale. The Patient 2016; 9 (3): 251-259. doi: 10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6
12. Sá AC, Sousa G, Santos A, Santos C, Abelha FJ. Quality of Recovery after Anesthesia: Validation of the Portuguese Version of the ‘Quality of Recovery 15’ Questionnaire. Acta Médica Portuguesa 2015; 28 (5): 567-574. doi: 10.20344/ amp.6129
13. Kleif J, Edwards HM, Sort R, Vilandt J, Gögenur I. Translation and validation of the Danish version of the postoperative quality of recovery score QoR-15. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2015; 59 (7): 912-920. doi: 10.1111/aas.12525
14. Lyckner S, Böregård IL, Zetterlund EL, Chew MS. Validation of the Swedish version of Quality of Recovery score-15: a multicentre, cohort study. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 2018; 62 (7): 893-902. doi: 10.1111/aas.13086
15. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical Association 2013; 310 (20): 2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/ jama.2013.281053
16. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. International Journal of Surgery 2014; 12 (12):1495-1499. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.07.013
17. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine 2000; 25 (24): 3186-3191. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
18. Protopapa KL, Simpson JC, Smith NC, Moonesinghe SR. Development and validation of the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). The British Journal of Surgery 2014; 101 (13): 1774-1783. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9638
19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson; 2007. pp. 481-498.
20. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 2013; 9 (2): 79-94. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
21. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Medical Care 1992; 30: 917-925. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004
22. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care 1989; 27: S178–189. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198903001-00015