Quality of Recovery After Unplanned and Planned Cesarean Deliveries: A Prospective Observational Study Using the Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature examining the differences between patient-reported outcome measures after planned and unplanned cesarean delivery using a validated quality of recovery tool. The Obstetric Quality of Recovery-10 (ObsQoR-10) scoring tool has been validated to quantify functional recovery after cesarean delivery. We aimed to use the ObsQoR-10 to compare the postoperative recovery characteristics of patients undergoing planned and unplanned cesarean deliveries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective single-center observational study. Patients undergoing planned and unplanned cesarean deliveries under neuraxial anesthesia were asked to complete the ObsQoR-10 questionnaire 24 hours, 48 hours, and 1 week postpartum. We collected information on total in-hospital postoperative opioid consumption and patients´ perception of readiness for discharge at 24 and 48 hours postpartum. Additionally, patient characteristics were collected to assess their correlation with our findings. RESULTS: We included 112 patients (56 in each group). No statistical differences in ObsQoR-10 scores at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 1 week postpartum were observed between the planned and unplanned cesarean deliveries. Additionally, there was no difference between the groups in patients' perception of readiness for hospital discharge at 24 and 48 hours and opioid consumption in the first 2 days after surgery. Most patients in both groups did not think they would be ready for discharge at 24 hours postpartum. Analysis of the individual components of ObsQoR-10 at 24 hours showed a difference in the responses assessing the severity of shivering (higher in unplanned cesarean deliveries) and the ability to look after personal hygiene (lower in unplanned cesarean deliveries). CONCLUSIONS: As assessed by the ObsQoR-10, no significant difference in the quality of recovery was observed between patients undergoing planned and unplanned cesarean delivery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".