| Title |
Reliability and Validity of a Japanese-language and Culturally Adapted Version of the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Scoring System for the Lower Extremity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11999-016-4880-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shintaro Iwata, Kosuke Uehara, Koichi Ogura, Toru Akiyama, Yusuke Shinoda, Tsukasa Yonemoto, Akira Kawai |
| Abstract |
The Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) scoring system is a widely used functional evaluation tool for patients treated for musculoskeletal tumors. Although the MSTS scoring system has been validated in English and Brazilian Portuguese, a Japanese version of the MSTS scoring system has not yet been validated. We sought to determine whether a Japanese-language translation of the MSTS scoring system for the lower extremity had (1) sufficient reliability and internal consistency, (2) adequate construct validity, and (3) reasonable criterion validity compared with the Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) and SF-36 using psychometric analysis. The Japanese version of the MSTS scoring system was developed using accepted guidelines, which included translation of the English version of the MSTS into Japanese by five native Japanese bilingual musculoskeletal oncology surgeons and integrated into one document. One hundred patients with a diagnosis of intermediate or malignant bone or soft tissue tumors located in the lower extremity and who had undergone tumor resection with or without reconstruction or amputation participated in this study. Reliability was evaluated by test-retest analysis, and internal consistency was established by Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Construct validity was evaluated using the principal factor analysis and Akaike information criterion network. Criterion validity was evaluated by comparing the MSTS scoring system with the TESS and SF-36. Test-retest analysis showed a high intraclass correlation coefficient (0.92; 95% CI, 0.88-0.95), indicating high reliability of the Japanese version of the MSTS scoring system, although a considerable ceiling effect was observed, with 23 patients (23%) given the maximum score. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.82-0.90), suggesting a high level of internal consistency. Factor analysis revealed that all items had high loading values and communalities; we identified a central role for the items "walking" and "gait" according to the Akaike information criterion network. The total MSTS score was correlated with that of the TESS (r = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.87; p < 0.001) and the physical component summary and physical functioning of the SF-36. The Japanese-language translation of the MSTS scoring system for the lower extremity has sufficient reliability and reasonable validity. Nevertheless, the observation of a ceiling effect suggests poor ability of this system to discriminate from among patients who have a high level of function. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 17% |
| Unknown | 41 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 15% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Unknown | 49 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,643,581
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#5,311
of 7,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,297
of 324,100 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#74
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,311 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,100 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.