Key result
A systematic search identified 14 universal postoperative recovery scales with varying structures and properties, highlighting the need for a gold standard universal scale.
Why the study?
Postoperative recovery is a subjective, multidimensional, complex process that cannot be assessed solely with objective indicators, leading to the widespread use of various patient-reported outcome scales.
Systematic Review
There are currently 14 universal recovery scales for assessing postoperative recovery, highlighting the need for a gold standard universal scale.
Multiple recovery scales with inconsistent properties limit standardized postoperative assessment; leaves open development of a consensus gold standard.
Postoperative recovery, as a window to observe perioperative treatment effect and patient prognosis, is a common outcome indicator in clinical research and has attracted more and more attention of surgeons and anaesthesiologists. Postoperative recovery is a subjective, multidimensional, long-term, complex process, so it is unreasonable to only use objective indicators to explain it. Currently, with the widespread use of patient-reported outcomes, various scales become the primary tools for assessing postoperative recovery. Through systematic search, we found 14 universal recovery scales, which have different structures, contents and measurement properties, as well as their own strengths and weaknesses. We also found that it is urgently necessary to perform further researches and develop a scale that can serve as the gold universal standard to evaluate postoperative recovery. In addition, with the rapid development of intelligent equipment, the establishment and validation of electronic scales is also an interesting direction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2022) conducted a systematic review in Postoperative recovery. Universal recovery scales was evaluated. A systematic search identified 14 universal postoperative recovery scales with varying structures and properties, highlighting the need for a gold standard universal scale.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: