ObjectivesThe Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score is widely used to assess the severity of clinical symptoms in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy, particularly in East Asian countries. In contrast, modified versions of the JOA score are currently accepted as the standard tool for assessment in Western countries. The objective of the present study is to compare these scales and clarify their differences and interchangeability and verify their validity by comparing them to other outcome measures.Materials and MethodsFive institutions participated in this prospective multicenter observational study. The JOA and modified JOA (mJOA) proposed by Benzel were recorded preoperatively and at three months postoperatively in patients with cervical compressive myelopathy who underwent decompression surgery. Patient reported outcome (PRO) measures, including Japanese Orthopaedic Association Cervical Myelopathy Evaluation Questionnaire (JOACMEQ), the Short Form-12 (SF-12) and the Neck Disability Index (NDI), were also recorded. The preoperative JOA score and mJOA score were compared to each other and the PRO values. A Bland-Altman analysis was performed to investigate their limits of agreement.ResultsA total of ninety-two patients were included. The correlation coefficient (Spearman’s rho) between the JOA and mJOA was 0.87. In contrast, the correlations between JOA/mJOA and the other PRO values were moderate (|rho| = 0.03 – 0.51). The correlation coefficient of the recovery rate between the JOA and mJOA was 0.75. The Bland-Altman analyses showed that limits of agreement were 3.6 to -1.2 for the total score, and 55.1% to -68.8% for the recovery rates.ConclusionsIn the present study, the JOA score and the mJOA score showed good correlation with each other in terms of their total scores and recovery rates. Previous studies using the JOA can be interpreted based on the mJOA; however it is not ideal to use them interchangeably. The validity of both scores was demonstrated by comparing these values to the PRO values.

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the painDETECT questionnaire (PDQ-J).Materials and MethodsThe translation of the original PDQ into Japanese was achieved according to the published guidelines. Subsequently, a multicenter observational study was performed to evaluate the validity and reliability of PDQ-J, including 113 Japanese patients suffering from pain.ResultsFactor analysis revealed that the main component of PDQ-J comprises two determinative factors, which account for 62% of the variance observed. Moreover, PDQ-J revealed statistically significant correlation with the intensity of pain (Numerical Rating Scale), Physical Component Score, and Mental Component Score of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). The Cronbach alpha for the total score was 0.78 and for the main component was 0.80. In the analysis of test–retest method, the intraclass correlation coefficient between the two scores was 0.94.ConclusionsWe demonstrated the validity and reliability of PDQ-J. We encourage researchers and clinicians to use this tool for the assessment of patients who suffer suspected neuropathic pain.

We defined the normative score and the cut-off value of the ODI.

Study Design. A retrospective analysis. Objective. The aim of this study was to elucidate the psychometric properties of the original Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, including the minimum detectable change (MDC), minimum clinically important difference (MCID), and patient-accepted symptom state (PASS). Summary of Background Data. Despite the worldwide popularity of modified JOA score (mJOA), the original JOA score is still commonly used in East Asian countries, including Japan. However, unlike mJOA score, the psychometric properties of JOA score remain poorly understood. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of laminoplasty for degenerative cervical myelopathy patients in a single academic institution. Pre- and postoperative JOA scores were collected, and the recovery rate was calculated. Anchor-based methods were used to determine the cut-off values by a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The patients were also asked to answer an anchor question analyzing their postoperative health transition used for the MDC and another question assessing the patient satisfaction used for the MCID and PASS. Results. A total of 101 patients were included in the analysis. The mean preoperative JOA score was 10.3 [standard deviation (SD): 2.4), and the mean postoperative JOA score was 13.4 (SD: 2.5). The mean recovery rate was 44%. A total of 68% of the patients admitted that their health condition was at least “somewhat better” than their preoperative condition, and 66% were at least “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment results. On the basis of ROC curve analyses, the MDC and MCID for JOA score in degenerative cervical myelopathy patients were calculated to be 2.5. The PASS was estimated to be 14.5, and the MCID for JOA recovery rate was 52.8%. Conclusion. The MDC, MCID, and PASS for JOA score for degenerative cervical myelopathy patients were reported by anchor-based ROC curve analyses. Level of Evidence: 4

4.