Analyze Diet
Veterinary anaesthesia and analgesia2011; 38(4); 352-362; doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2011.00629.x

Quantitative and qualitative comparison of three scoring systems for assessing recovery quality after general anaesthesia in horses.

Abstract: To assess the reproducibility and repeatability of two commonly used recovery quality scoring systems and compare them with those of a novel system based on a greater number of objective criteria. Methods: The video-recorded recoveries of ten client-owned horses selected from all recovery recordings taken between September 2005 and March 2006 at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies. Methods: A digital versatile disc (DVD) was produced using edited video recordings of ten horses recovering from general anaesthesia. Twelve experienced equine anaesthetists (raters) studied the DVD on three occasions, and scored the recovery quality of each horse using one of three scoring systems (P, D or E) on each occasion. The process was repeated 6 months later (t = 6) to measure intra-observer reliability (repeatability). At first use (t = 0) raters were asked to comment on the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Results: Inter-rater variability was limited for each system: at each observation period raters accounted for 0.3-4.4% variation. System P was insensitive to differences between recoveries. In system D, score variability increased as recovery quality deteriorated. Intra-rater variability varied with system: using system P, raters provided consistent scores between the observation periods for some, but not all horses ('horse' and 'rater' accounted for 9.7% and 1.9% of variation respectively). Raters were less consistent between t = 0 and t = 6 using system D, but each horse was scored with similar consistency. System E produced little variation at the level of horse (1.0%) and rater (1.9%). Raters broadly agreed on the principle advantages and disadvantages of the three systems. Conclusions: The systems examined showed reliability and reproducibility but practicality and simplicity of use appeared to be inextricably linked with imprecision. Further work is required to produce a suitable recovery quality scoring system.
Publication Date: 2011-06-16 PubMed ID: 21672127DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2995.2011.00629.xGoogle Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
  • Comparative Study
  • Journal Article
  • Validation Study

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research is about the examination of reproducibility and repeatability of two existing methods for assessing the recovery quality of horses after general anesthesia and their comparison with a newly developed system.

Methodology

  • The researchers studied videotaped recovery processes of ten client-owned horses at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies from September 2005 to March 2006.
  • A DVD was produced using edited video recordings of ten horses recovering from general anaesthesia. Each horse’s recovery quality was scored by twelve experienced equine anaesthetists using one of three scoring systems (P, D or E) at three separate times.
  • Six months later, the process was repeated to evaluate the repeatability of the scoring systems. The anaesthetists evaluated the pros and cons of each system at the initial use (t = 0).

Results

  • The variation between different raters was found to be limited for each system, with raters responsible for just 0.3-4.4% of the variation across all observation periods.
  • System P proved to be lackluster at distinguishing between different recovery periods.
  • Score variability in system D increased with the deterioration of recovery quality.
  • In terms of repeatability, it was observed that with system P, consistent scores were not provided for every horse.
  • System E showed minimal variation at the level of the horse and rater.
  • Overall, raters agreed on the main advantages and disadvantages of the three systems.

Conclusion

  • All three systems examined showed reliability and reproducibility.
  • However, a trade-off was observed between practicality and simplicity of use with accuracy, which indicated a need for further research to create an ideal recovery quality scoring system.

Cite This Article

APA
Suthers JM, Christley RM, Clutton RE. (2011). Quantitative and qualitative comparison of three scoring systems for assessing recovery quality after general anaesthesia in horses. Vet Anaesth Analg, 38(4), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2995.2011.00629.x

Publication

ISSN: 1467-2995
NlmUniqueID: 100956422
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 38
Issue: 4
Pages: 352-362

Researcher Affiliations

Suthers, Joanna M
  • Department of Veterinary Clinical Studies, Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, Easter Bush Veterinary Centre, Roslin, Midlothian, UK. jsuthers@liverpool.ac.uk
Christley, Robert M
    Clutton, R Eddie

      MeSH Terms

      • Anesthesia Recovery Period
      • Anesthesia, General / veterinary
      • Animals
      • Horses
      • Observer Variation
      • Qualitative Research
      • Reproducibility of Results
      • Video Recording