24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      An outcome measure for patients with cervical myelopathy: the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): an average score of healthy volunteers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          An outcome measure to evaluate the neurological function of patients with cervical myelopathy was proposed by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA score) and has been widely used in Japan. However, the JOA score does not include patients’ satisfaction, disability, handicaps, or general health, which can be affected by cervical myelopathy. In 2007, a new outcome measure, the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), which is a self-administered questionnaire, was developed. However, the influence of age and gender on the scores has not been fully examined. The purpose of this study was to establish the standard value of the JOACMEQ by age using healthy volunteers.

          Methods

          This study was conducted in 23 university hospitals and their affiliated hospitals from September to December 2011. The questionnaire included 24 questions for evaluation of physical function of the cervical spine and spinal cord. A total of 1,629 healthy volunteers were recruited for the study. The ages ranged from 20 to 89 years old.

          Results

          The volunteers comprised 798 men and 831 women. In the elderly healthy volunteers, the JOACMEQ scores decreased with age. In general, the scores for cervical spine function and upper/lower extremity function were retained up to the 60s, then decreased in the 70s and 80s. The scores for quality of life were retained up to the 70s; however, the score for bladder function was retained up to the 40s, then declined with age from the 50s to 80s.

          Conclusion

          The standard values of the JOACMEQ by age were established. Differences in the scores were found among different generations. Patients with cervical myelopathy should be evaluated with this new self-administered questionnaire taking into account the standard values according to different ages.

          Related collections

          Most cited references4

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          JOA Back Pain Evaluation Questionnaire (JOABPEQ)/JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ). The report on the development of revised versions. April 16, 2007. The Subcommittee of the Clinical Outcome Committee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association on Low Back Pain and Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ): part 4. Establishment of equations for severity scores

            Background To establish a patient-oriented outcome measure for cervical myelopathy, a subcommittee of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) developed a new scoring system to evaluate the overall clinical status of patients, which could be completed by patients themselves. The subcommittee completed three large-scale studies to select and modify questions derived from various preexisting outcome measures including Short Form-36, and then finalized and validated the questionnaire, which comprised 24 questions. Methods The finalized questionnaire was administered to 369 patients with cervical myelopathy due to disc herniation, spondylosis, or ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament by randomly selected board-certified spine surgeons. Patients with different severities of myelopathy were included to insure accuracy and responsiveness of this questionnaire against patients’ different neurological status. Results Data of 236 patients were employed and were subjected to rigorous statistical analyses. There was no question that was difficult to answer and distribution of answers for each question was not concentrated to one choice, indicating the appropriateness of all 24 questions. Results of factor analysis suggested that the 24 questions could be divided into five different factors or functional domains. The factors were defined as follows: factor 1, lower extremity function; factor 2, quality of life; factor 3, cervical spine function; factor 4, bladder function; and factor 5, upper extremity function. Finally, equations that would yield scores for the five factors were assembled. The score to be used to represent the degree of patients’ disability or status in each domain can be calculated by multiplying prefixed numbers of selected answers to questions by preassigned coefficients. Coefficients were defined to make the minimum score 0 and the maximum score 100. Conclusions We have successfully established a questionnaire that is able to demonstrate the status of patients suffering cervical myelopathy from five different aspects represented by five intuitive numerical scores. The final issue to be confirmed is the responsiveness of this questionnaire to changes in patients’ status after various surgical and nonsurgical treatments.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire: Part 3. Determination of reliability

              Background The manner of measuring the outcome of cervical myelopathy must be patient-oriented and have sufficient reliability and validity. The current Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) scoring system for cervical myelopathy is widely used but has not met this requirement. The first- and second-round surveys established 24 items for inclusion on a new questionnaire for cervical myelopathy. The purpose of this study (the third-round survey A) was to confirm the reproducibility of patient responses to the selected questions. Methods A total of 201 patients with cervical myelopathy and with no change of symptoms between the two interviews were included. Each patient was interviewed twice using the same questionnaire at an interval of 4 weeks. The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated by determining the extension of the weighted kappa coefficients. Results The weighted kappa coefficient for each item was >0.4, confirming that the test–retest reliability was acceptable. Conclusions The newly developed JOA Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire was proven to have sufficient reliability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +81-82-2575233 , +81-82-2575234 , nobut@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
                Journal
                J Orthop Sci
                J Orthop Sci
                Journal of Orthopaedic Science
                Springer Japan (Tokyo )
                0949-2658
                1436-2023
                7 December 2013
                7 December 2013
                2014
                : 19
                : 33-48
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, Kasumi 1-2-3, Minami-ku, Hiroshima, 734-8551 Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
                [ ]Laboratory of Statistics, Osaka City University Faculty of Medicine, Osaka, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba University, Chiba, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kitasato University Kitasato Institute Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Tsu, Mie Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toyama, Toyama, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Imakiire General Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Osaka Kosei-Nenkin Hospital, Osaka, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yamaguchi University Graduate School of Medicine, Yamaguchi, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Dokkyo Medical University School of Medicine, Tochigi, Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Wakayama Medical University, Kimiidera, Wakayama, Japan
                [ ]The Spine Center, Hakodate Central General Hospital, Hakodate, Hokkaido Japan
                [ ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gunma Spine Center, Takasaki, Gunma Japan
                [ ]Spine Care Center, Wakayama Medical University Kihoku Hospital, Katsuragi-cho, Ito-gun, Wakayama Japan
                Article
                494
                10.1007/s00776-013-0494-y
                3929037
                24317702
                ecb609c1-88ae-46ad-842b-ed12b3092fac
                © The Japanese Orthopaedic Association 2013
                History
                : 29 July 2013
                : 21 October 2013
                Categories
                Original Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Japanese Orthopaedic Association 2014

                Orthopedics
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article