Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders I: development of standard rating system

Autor: Niki, Hisateru, Aoki, Haruhito, Inokuchi, Suguru, Ozeki, Satoru, Kinoshita, Mitsuo, Kura, Hideji, Tanaka, Yasuhito, Noguchi, Masahiko, Nomura, Shigeharu, Hatori, Masahito, Tatsunami, Shinobu
Zdroj: Journal of Orthopaedic Science; September 2005, Vol. 10 Issue: 5 p457-465, 9p
Abstrakt: Abstract: Background: The aim of this study was to report the five scales comprising the rating system that the Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) devised (JSSF standard rating system) and the newly offered interpretations and criteria for determinations of each assessment item. Methods: We produced the new scales for the JSSF standard system by modifying the clinical rating systems established by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS scales) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s foot rating scale (JOA scale). We also provided interpretations of each assessment item and the criteria of determinations in the new standard system. Results: We improved the ambiguous expressions and content in the conventional standard rating systems so they would be easily understood by Japanese people. The result was five scales in total. Four were designed for use specifically for ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux metatarsophalangeal-interphalangeal, and lesser metatarsophalangeal-ineterphalangeal sites; and the fifth was for the foot and ankle with rheumatoid arthritis. Furthermore, we described interpretations and criteria for determinations with regard to evaluation items in each scale. Conclusions: Conventionally, the AOFAS scales or the JOA scale have been separately applied depending on the sites or disorders concerned, but it was often difficult to decide on scores during practical evaluations because of differing expressions in different languages and also because of ambiguity in the interpretation of each evaluation item and in scoring standards as well. JSSF improved these scales and added definite interpretations of evaluation items as well as criteria for the rating (to be reported here in part I). Because these steps were expected to improve the reliability of outcomes assessed by each scale, we examined the reliability in scores of the newly developed scales, which are reported in part II (in this issue).
Databáze: Supplemental Index
Externí odkaz: