Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40244582›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Development and Validation of the Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist (STORK): A Delphi Consensus and Multicenter Clinical Validation Study.

Pervez Sultan, Perman Pandal, Anarghya Murthy, Nan Guo, Michaela K Farber, Paloma Toledo, Nicole Higgins, Julio F Fiore, Benjamin W Domingue, Elahe Khorasani and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation StudyConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07192718 (A Pilot Feasibility Trial for a Comprehensive Multimodal Intervention to Assess Global Recovery Following Cesarean Delivery), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT07192718 naenrolling by invitationnot on this map

A Pilot Feasibility Trial for a Comprehensive Multimodal Intervention to Assess Global Recovery Following Cesarean Delivery

TypeinterventionalSponsorStanford UniversityRan2025 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsCesarean Section Complications, Postpartum CareArmsEmpowered Relief, Education
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Pervez SultanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Perman PandalDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Anarghya MurthyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nan GuoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Michaela K FarberDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Paloma ToledoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Nicole HigginsDepartment of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Julio F FioreDivision of General Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Benjamin W DomingueGraduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Elahe KhorasaniDivision of General Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Sally E JensenDepartment of Anesthesiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Deirdre J LyellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Brendan CarvalhoDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist (STORK) Investigators

Funding

Stanford PRIHSM: Promoting Improvement in Hemorrhage-related Severe Maternal MorbidityU54HD113142 · NICHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SUZAN L CARMICHAEL, Yasser Y El-Sayed · 2023 to 2026
$11.0M
Development and Validation of a PROMIS-based Measure to Assess Postpartum SleepR01HL166253 · NHLBI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Pervez Sultan · 2023 to 2026
$2.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL166253NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD113142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery lack content validity and were mostly not designed for this population. A Delphi process was performed, aiming to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for outpatient postpartum recovery and then evaluate it in a multicenter cohort study. Methods: Development of the Stanford Obstetric Recovery Checklist (STORK) involved 3 phases: (1) postpartum recovery questions were identified in published reviews; (2) after institutional review board approval, 16 multidisciplinary experts and patient stakeholders participated in 3 Delphi rounds (January 11 to April 12, 2021) to select items, resulting in the development of STORK (47 items; total score range, 0-188, with 0 indicating the worst recovery and 188 indicating the best recovery); and (3) cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 10 postpartum individuals to finalize STORK items. Individuals then completed STORK during their inpatient stay and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post partum in a prospective, 3-center, US longitudinal cohort study conducted from June 13, 2022, to February 28, 2023. Recruitment occurred until 300 six-week STORK surveys were completed. STORK was evaluated at 6 weeks for validity (ability to measure recovery), reliability, and responsiveness. Validity included (1) structural validity (exploratory factor analysis using root mean square residual [RMSR]; <0.08 indicates a good fit); (2) convergent validity (correlation with global health visual analog scale score [GHVAS; scale, 0-100] and EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Three-Levels [EQ-5D-3L]); (3) discriminant validity (mean difference in STORK scores with GHVAS <70 vs ≥70); and (4) confirmatory telephone interviews with postpartum individuals scoring the highest and lowest 10th percentiles of STORK scores. Reliability (consistency of STORK scores) was evaluated using Cronbach α, interitem correlation, split-half reliability, and floor and ceiling effects. Responsiveness (ability of STORK to detect changes in recovery over time) was evaluated using percentage change in score from baseline to 12 weeks. Results: A total of 525 individuals were recruited after all delivery modes (response rate, 62% [324 of 525] at 6 weeks); 498 (mean [SD] age, 33.3 [4.9] years) completed baseline inpatient postpartum surveys. STORK demonstrated validity: (1) a 4-factor model was the best fit (RMSR = 0.05); (2) correlation with GHVAS scores was ρ = 0.52 (95% CI, 0.43-0.61), and correlation with EQ-5D-3L scores was ρ = -0.67 (95% CI, -0.76 to -0.63); (3) STORK was able to discriminate between patients reporting good and poor recovery (good recovery: median STORK score, 151 [IQR, 136-163] vs poor recovery: median STORK score, 129 [IQR, 107-148]; P < .001); and (4) the highest and lowest scores corresponded to subjective assessments. STORK demonstrated reliability (Cronbach α = 0.92; interitem correlation r = 0.20; and split-half reliability ρ = 0.98). It also demonstrated responsiveness: percentage increases in overall STORK scores from baseline to week 12 were 19% after spontaneous vaginal delivery, 31% after operative vaginal delivery, 27% after scheduled cesarean delivery, and 20% after nonscheduled cesarean delivery (P < .001). Conclusion: In this cohort study of US individuals, STORK was found to be a valid, reliable, and responsive measure of outpatient postpartum recovery. Future clinical trials are needed to determine its clinical utility.

Indexed as

ChecklistPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPostpartum PeriodAdultDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyProspective StudiesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID40244582
PMCPMC12006865

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.