Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2005 Sep;10(5):457-65.
doi: 10.1007/s00776-005-0936-2.

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

Affiliations

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

Hisateru Niki et al. J Orthop Sci. 2005 Sep.

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).

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Japanese Orthopaedic Association Assessment criteria for foot disorders of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association. J Jpn Orthop Assoc. 1991;65:680.
    1. Hisateru N, Nango A. Clinical rating systems for ankle disorders. In: Murota K, Yabe Y, Sano S, editors. Manual of orthopaedic clinical rating systems. Tokyo: Zen Nihonbyoin Shuppan Kai; 1995. pp. 117–35.
    1. Kitaoka HB, Alexander IJ, Adelaar RS, Nunley JA, Myerson MS, Sanders M. Clinical rating systems for the ankle-hindfoot, midfoot, hallux, and lesser toes. Foot Ankle Int. 1994;15:349–53. - PubMed
    1. Toolan BC, Wright Quinones VJ, Cunningham BJ, Brage ME. An evaluation of the use of retrospectively acquired preoperative AOFAS clinical rating scores to assess surgical outcome after elective foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:775–8. - PubMed
    1. Thordarson DB, Rudicel SA, Ebramzadeh E, Gill LH. Outcome study of hallux valgus surgery: an AOFAS multi-center study. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:956–9. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources