Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42781734›Full record

ReviewAnaesthesia2026

Minimal clinically important difference and psychometric properties of the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 measure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Moe Takenoshita, Satyam Ghimire, Lu Tian, Aleesha Jethwa, Phillip Callihan, Fatine Karkri, Lindsay E Blake, Pervez Sultan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Anaesthesia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Moe TakenoshitaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0982-8528
Satyam GhimireDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, UK.
Lu TianDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Aleesha JethwaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Phillip CallihanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Fatine KarkriDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Lindsay E BlakeDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Pervez SultanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Stanford PRIHSM: Promoting Improvement in Hemorrhage-related Severe Maternal MorbidityU54HD113142 · NICHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Deirdre Lyell · 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
Interdisciplinary research training in maternal and childhood painR90HD118650 · NICHD · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LAURA E SIMONS · 2024 to 2026
$1.1M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL166253NICHD NIH HHS R90 HD118650NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD113142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 (ObsQoR-10) is a patient-reported outcome measure for evaluating inpatient postpartum recovery. However, the minimal clinically important difference for ObsQoR-10 remains unknown, limiting clinical and research interpretability. The primary aim of this study was to determine the minimal clinically important difference of ObsQoR-10 through systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies and to evaluate its psychometric properties.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies and searched relevant databases using keywords relating to 'obstetric quality of recovery.' We included observational and interventional studies reporting more than one psychometric property of ObsQoR-10 at one or more inpatient time-points. Two reviewers independently screened and evaluated study quality using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Minimal clinically important difference was estimated through triangulation of distribution-based (half of standard deviation of scores) and anchor-based (differences in scores between vaginal delivery and caesarean delivery, and between planned and unplanned caesarean delivery) methods.

resultsWe included 12 studies with a total of 2017 parturients. Mean (SD) ObsQoR-10 score ranged from 48 (16.3) (caesarean delivery) to 89 (9.3) (vaginal delivery). Distribution-based estimates ranged from 6.7 (95%CI 6.0-7.6) to 8.7 (95%CI 7.9-9.6), while anchor-based estimates ranged from 9.7 (95%CI 2.7-16.5) to 12.4 (95%CI 3.1-21.5). Most studies reported statistically significant differences in scores between delivery modes. Overall, there was moderate evidence for sufficient validity, reliability and responsiveness of ObsQoR-10 across the postpartum period. DISCUSSION: We recommend using a minimal clinically important difference of 7-10 points for ObsQoR-10, with 7 points as the lower-bound estimate. This can be used to help interpret ObsQoR-10 scores in clinical settings and to power future studies using ObsQoR-10 as a primary outcome measure.

Indexed as

minimal clinically important differencepatient‐reported outcome measurespostpartum periodpsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID42781734
PMCPMC13625482

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.