Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25837285›Full record

Observational studyPloS one2015

Comparison of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score and modified JOA (mJOA) score for the assessment of cervical myelopathy: a multicenter observational study.

So Kato, Yasushi Oshima, Hiroyuki Oka, Hirotaka Chikuda, Yujiro Takeshita, Kota Miyoshi, Naohiro Kawamura, Kazuhiro Masuda, Junichi Kunogi, Rentaro Okazaki and 4 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT05489822 (Sponsor-initiated, Prospective, Single-center, Non-interventional Clinical Observational Study to Evaluate the VERTICALE® Cervical System in Spine Surgery According to Its Intended Use.), which is not on this map. Cited by 117 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
12.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05489822 terminatednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Sponsor-initiated, Prospective, Single-center, Non-interventional Clinical Observational Study to Evaluate the VERTICALE® Cervical System in Spine Surgery According to Its Intended Use.

TypeobservationalSponsorSilony Medical GmbHRan2023 to 2024Enrolled4ConditionsDegenerative Disc Disease (DDD), Instabilities, Trauma, DeformityArmsVERTICALE® Cervical System
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 242 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Open posterior approach versus endoscopic approach for thoracic ligamentum flavum ossification: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Artificial intelligence and machine learning based predictive analytics in cervical myelopathy - a scoping review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

So KatoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasushi OshimaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki OkaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hirotaka ChikudaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Yujiro TakeshitaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Kota MiyoshiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan.
Naohiro KawamuraDepartment of Spine and Orthopaedic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Kazuhiro MasudaDepartment of Spine and Orthopaedic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Junichi KunogiDepartment of Spine and Orthopaedic Surgery, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Rentaro OkazakiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saitama Red Cross Hospital, Saitama, Japan.
Seiichi AzumaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Saitama Red Cross Hospital, Saitama, Japan.
Nobuhiro HaraDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Musashino Red Cross Hospital, Musashino, Japan.
Sakae TanakaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Katsushi TakeshitaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, the University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
University of Tokyo Hospital · JPJapanese Red Cross Medical Center · JPSaitama Red Cross Hospital · JPThe University of Tokyo · JPYokohama Rosai Hospital · JPMusashino Red Cross Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationOutcome Assessment, Health CareSeverity of Illness IndexCervical VertebraeDecompression, SurgicalHumansJapanMiddle AgedOrthopedicsProspective StudiesSpinal Cord DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID25837285
PMCPMC4383381
OpenAlexW2027588890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.