Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Midlothian.
Equine Vet J. 2010 Jul;42(5):400-6. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2010.00093.x.
The recovery quality scoring systems (RQSSs) in current use have not been critically reviewed for reliability.
To examine reliability (reproducibility) of 4 RQSSs when applied to a ranked series.
A DVD incorporating the recordings of 9 horses recovering from general anaesthesia was evaluated by final year students over 5 days. On Day 1, each evaluator ranked recoveries from 1-9 (1 = best). Over the following 4 days, each evaluator scored the same recoveries using 4 different RQSSs (3 of them in common usage and previously published) applied in random order. The scores from each RQSS were ranked and plotted against the Day 1 ranking of each evaluator to establish the extent of agreement using generalisability theory. The same 9 recoveries were also ranked by 12 experienced equine anaesthetists and the Spearman Rank Correlation coefficient calculated to determine the agreement between experienced and inexperienced evaluators.
The recoveries were evaluated by 117 students. All 4 RQSSs were equally reliable with low (<4%) interobserver variability. The main (80%) source of total variation arose from differences between horses. The overall ranking within each RQSS was strongly correlated with Day 1 ranking. There was strong correlation (r = 0.983) between the students' ranking and that established by experienced anaesthetists. Interobserver reliability was similar with all 4 RQSSs.
All 4 RQSSs studied were similarly reliable.
The selection of a universally acceptable RQSS from amongst the 4 examined can be based on criteria other than reliability, e.g. ease of use. This will facilitate wider scale multi-centre studies in recovery quality after anaesthesia in horses.
目前使用的恢复质量评分系统（RQSS）尚未经过可靠性的严格审查。
检查 4 种 RQSS 在排序系列中的可靠性（可重复性）。
通过 5 天时间，由最后一年的学生评估包含 9 匹从全身麻醉中恢复的马的录像的 DVD。在第 1 天，每位评估者将恢复情况从 1-9 进行排名（1=最佳）。在接下来的 4 天中，每位评估者使用 4 种不同的 RQSS（其中 3 种为常用且已发表）随机顺序对相同的恢复情况进行评分。使用可概括性理论对每个 RQSS 的评分进行排名，并与每位评估者的第 1 天排名进行比较，以确定一致性程度。同样的 9 种恢复情况也由 12 位经验丰富的马麻醉师进行排名，并计算 Spearman 秩相关系数，以确定有经验和无经验评估者之间的一致性。
共有 117 名学生对恢复情况进行了评估。所有 4 种 RQSS 的可靠性均相同，观察者间变异性较低（<4%）。总变异的主要（80%）来源是马之间的差异。每个 RQSS 中的总体排名与第 1 天的排名密切相关。学生的排名与经验丰富的麻醉师建立的排名之间存在强烈的相关性（r = 0.983）。所有 4 种 RQSS 的观察者间可靠性相似。
研究中的所有 4 种 RQSS 都具有相似的可靠性。
可以根据易于使用等除可靠性之外的标准，从研究中检查的 4 种 RQSS 中选择一种普遍可接受的 RQSS。这将有助于在马全身麻醉后恢复质量方面进行更广泛的多中心研究。
