ArticleSpine deformity2024
Reliability and validity of the pediatric adaptation of the mJOA scale for evaluating cervical spine disorders.
Article in Spine deformity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Complications and outcomes of spinal deformity correction in patient with open neural tube defects.Spine deformity · 2026Article
- A rare cervical complication of Kawasaki disease: a retrospective study of clinical and radiological features.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Spine Surgery.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the pediatric adaptation of the Japanese Orthopedic Association (mJOA) scale in pediatric patients with various cervical spine pathologies.
methodsInitial assessments were performed by a neurosurgeon, followed by an independent evaluation by a neurologist within 1-2 days to test inter-rater reliability. The same clinician assessed the same group of children using the adapted mJOA scale at different point in time (between 1 month and 1 year after the initial assessment) to test intra-rater reliability. For known-groups validity, the pediatric mJOA scale assessments were compared between two groups of pathologies with different prognosis. Concurrent validity was assessed against the McCormick scale, and convergent validity was tested by reassessing patients using the adult mJOA scale two or more years after the initial assessment by pediatric one.
resultsA cohort of 169 pediatric patients aged 6 months to 18 years (mean age: 10 ± 4.6 years) with various cervical spine pathologies was recruited. Pathologies included atlanto-axial rotatory fixation (AARF), Chiari type I anomaly, congenital cervical spine scoliosis, atlanto-axial dislocation (AAD) and instability (AAI), cervical spine stenosis and trauma, and congenital cervicothoracic dislocations. The majority of patients underwent cervical spine surgery and were followed up for an average of 6.9 ± 2.97 years. The pediatric mJOA scale demonstrated high inter-rater reliability (r = 0.99, p < 0.0001) and strong intra-rater reliability (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001). Significant differences in pediatric mJOA scores were observed between patients with expected-intact neurological status and those with expected-pathological neurological status (p < 0.0001). The pediatric mJOA scale showed a strong correlation with the McCormick grading system (r = 0.97, p < 0.001) and good correlation with the adult mJOA scale during long-term follow-up (r = 0.82, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe pediatric version of the mJOA scale is a reliable and valid tool for assessing pediatric patients with cervical spine disorders. Its high reliability and validity support its use in both clinical practice and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39026126What 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.