Psychometric properties of the modified japanese Orthopaedic association scale in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy

Spine

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 2015, Pages E23-E28

  Kopjar, Branko ^a   Tetreault, Lindsay ^b   Kalsi Ryan, Suhkvinder ^b   Fehlings, Michael ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b TORONTO WESTERN HOSPITAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

cervical spondylotic myelopathy; CSM; mJOA; outcome measures; validation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANUS SPHINCTER DISORDER; ARM MOVEMENT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPONDYLOTIC MYELOPATHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVERGENT VALIDITY; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; EFFECT SIZE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCORE; LEG MOVEMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MODIFIED JAPANESE ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION SCALE; MOTOR DYSFUNCTION; NURICK (GRADE); PSYCHOMETRY; SENSORY DYSFUNCTION; SHORT FORM 36; SURGICAL PATIENT; CERVICAL VERTEBRA; COMPLICATION; DISABILITY; LOWER LIMB; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR DISORDERS; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSATION DISORDERS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UPPER LIMB; URINARY BLADDER, NEUROGENIC; VALIDATION STUDY; VERY ELDERLY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LOWER EXTREMITY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MOTOR DISORDERS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSATION DISORDERS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPINAL CORD DISEASES; SPONDYLOSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UPPER EXTREMITY; URINARY BLADDER, NEUROGENIC;

EID: 84920201097     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000648     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Kalsi-Ryan S, Karadimas SK, Fehlings MG. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: the clinical phenomenon and the current pathobiology of an increasingly prevalent and devastating disorder. Neuroscientist 2013;19:409-21.
2. Singh A, Tetreault L, Casey A, et al. A summary of assessment tools for patients suffering from cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review on validity, reliability, and responsiveness [published online ahead of print September 5, 2013]. Eur Spine J. doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2935-x.
3. Laing RJ. Measuring outcome in neurosurgery. Br J Neurosurg 2000;14:181-4.
4. Holly L T, Matz PG, Anderson PA, et al. Clinical prognostic indicators of surgical outcome in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:112-8.
5. Kalsi-Ryan S, Singh A, Massicotte EM, et al. Ancillary outcome measures for assessment of individuals with cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2013;38:S111-22.
6. Singh A, Crockard HA. Quantitative assessment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy by a simple walking test. Lancet 1999;354:370-3.
7. Nurick S. The natural history and the results of surgical treatment of the spinal cord disorder associated with cervical spondylosis. Brain 1972;95:101-8.
8. Olindo S, Signate A, Richech A, et al. Quantitative assessment of hand disability by the nine-hole-peg test (9-HPT) in cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2008;79:965-7.
9. Hosono N, Sakaura H, Mukai Y, et al. A simple performance test for quantifying the severity of cervical myelopathy [erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1534]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1210-3.
10. Casey A T, Bland JM, Crockard HA. Development of a functional scoring system for rheumatoid arthritis patients with cervical myelopathy. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:901-6.
11. Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, et al. Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. J Spinal Disord 1991;4:286-95.
12. Yonenobu K, Abumi K, Nagata K, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association scoring system for evaluation of cervical compression myelopathy. Spine 2001;26:1890-4; discussion 5.
13. Fehlings MG, Wilson JR, Kopjar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results of the AOSpine North America Prospective Multicenter Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:1651-8.
14. Singh A, Crockard HA. Comparison of seven different scales used to quantify severity of cervical spondylotic myelopathy and postoperative improvement. J Outcome Meas 2001;5:798-818.
15. Pietrobon R, Coeytaux RR, Carey TS, et al. Standard scales for measurement of functional outcome for cervical pain or dysfunction: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002;27:515-22.
16. Cleland JA, Fritz JM, Whitman JM, et al. The reliability and construct validity of the neck disability index and patient specific functional scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006;31:598-602.
17. Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Vassilaki M, et al. Adverse reactions to chiropractic treatment and their effects on satisfaction and clinical outcomes among patients enrolled in the UCLA Neck Pain Study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2004;27:16-25.
18. MacDermid JC, Walton DM, Avery S, et al. Measurement properties of the neck disability index: a systematic review. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39:400-17.
19. Nederhand MJ, Ijzerman MJ, Hermens HJ, et al. Predictive value of fear avoidance in developing chronic neck pain disability: consequences for clinical decision making. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004;85:496-501.
20. Riddle DL, Stratford PW. Use of generic versus region-specific functional status measures on patients with cervical spine disorders. Phys Ther 1998;78:951-63.
21. Vernon H, Mior S. The neck disability index: a study of reliability and validity. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:409-15.
22. Young IA, Cleland JA, Michener LA, et al. Reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness of the neck disability index, patientspecific functional scale, and numeric pain rating scale in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2010;89:831-9.
23. Bolton JE. Sensitivity and specificity of outcome measures in patients with neck pain: detecting clinically significant improvement. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004;29:2410-7; discussion 8.
24. Holly L T, Matz PG, Anderson P A, et al. Functional outcomes assessment for cervical degenerative disease. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;11:238-44.
25. Kopjar B. The SF-36 health survey: a valid measure of changes in health status after injury. Inj Prev 1996;2:135-9.
26. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160-4.
27. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955;52:281-302.
28. Kraemer HC. Extension of the kappa coefficient. Biometrics 1980;36:207-16.
29. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
30. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991;12:142S - 58S.
31. Latimer M, Haden N, Seeley HM, et al. Measurement of outcome in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy treated surgically. Br J Neurosurg 2002;16:545-9.