| Title |
The importance of postoperative quality of recovery: influences, assessment, and clinical and prognostic implications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12630-015-0508-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea Bowyer, Colin Royse |
| Abstract |
Quality of recovery is a complex construct whose definition is influenced heavily by the opinions and biases of the individual patient, clinician, or institution. As a result, recovery assessment tools differ in their fundamental definitions of recovery, breadth, and assessment time frame. Accurate assessment of recovery is essential as suboptimal recovery has both economic and prognostic implications. Quality of care is often substituted as a surrogate at the institutional level for quality of recovery, but it is ideologically distinct from patients' perceived quality of care, recovery, and satisfaction. Recovery tools also differ in their assessment of recovery as a continuous vs dichotomous variable and in their focus at the group vs individual level. Ideally, recovery measures should assess outcomes in a simple dichotomous fashion and maintain relevancy by assessing in multiple domains at various time points. Assessment of recovery in a dichotomous fashion also has both clinical and research applications. It allows identification of suboptimal recovery at both individual and group levels, respectively, and when performed in real time, it allows the opportunity for timely targeted intervention specific to individual patients as well as for resource rationalization. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 4 | 80% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 27 | 77% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 83% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,600,874
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#1,999
of 2,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,785
of 292,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#26
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.