ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2024
Comparison of the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association scale and the European myelopathy score.
Article in 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, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new mri dorsal spinal cord migration pattern may reduce C5 palsy in C3 dome C7 reverse dome open door laminoplasty.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 · 2026Article
- 1-year data on patient-reported outcome is enough after surgery for degenerative cervical myelopathy: a cohort study from the Swedish Spine register.Acta orthopaedica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the patient-derived modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association (P-mJOA) scale with the European myelopathy score (EMS) for the assessment of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM).
methodsIn this register-based cohort study with prospectively collected data, included patients were surgically treated for DCM and had reported both P-mJOA and EMS scores at baseline, 1-year follow-up, and/or 2-year follow-up to the Swedish Spine Register. P-mJOA and EMS scores were defined as severe (P-mJOA 0-11 and EMS 5-8), moderate (P-mJOA 12-14 and EMS 9-12), or mild (P-mJOA 15-18 and EMS 13-18). P-mJOA and EMS mean scores were compared, and agreement was evaluated with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (ρ), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and kappa (κ) statistics.
resultsIncluded patients (n = 714, mean age 63.2 years, 42.2% female) completed 937 pairs of the P-mJOA and the EMS. The mean P-mJOA and EMS scores were 13.9 ± 3.0 and 14.5 ± 2.7, respectively (mean difference -0.61 [95% CI -0.72 to -0.51; p < 0.001]). Spearman's ρ was 0.84 (p < 0.001), and intra-rater agreement measured with ICC was 0.83 (p < 0.001). Agreement of severity level measured with unweighted and weighted κ was fair (κ = 0.22 [p < 0.001]; κ = 0.34 [p < 0.001], respectively). Severity levels were significantly higher using the P-mJOA (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe P-mJOA and the EMS had similar mean scores, and intra-rater agreement was high, whereas severity levels only demonstrated fair agreement. The EMS has a lower sensitivity for detecting severe myelopathy but shows an increasing agreement with the P-mJOA for milder disease severity. A larger interval to define severe myelopathy with the EMS is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.