BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsConventionally, 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).

OBJECTIVEUrinary liver-type fatty acid–binding protein (L-FABP) is a promising indicator of tubular but not glomerular damage. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical usefulness of urinary L-FABP as a prognostic biomarker in impaired diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThis investigation involved a cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the relationship between urinary L-FABP levels and progressive nephropathy. Urinary L-FABP was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. In the cross-sectional analysis, the association of urinary L-FABP, with the severity of diabetic nephropathy, was investigated in 140 patients with type 2 diabetes and in 412 healthy control subjects. Of the patients in the former study, 104 have been followed for 4 years. The progression of diabetic nephropathy was defined as progressive albuminuria, end-stage renal disease, or induction of hemodialysis.RESULTSUrinary L-FABP levels were progressively increased in subjects with normo-, micro-, or macroalbuminuria and further increased in patients with end-stage renal disease. In the longitudinal analysis, high urinary L-FABP levels were associated with the increase in albuminuria, progression to end-stage renal disease, or induction of hemodialysis. This was particularly demonstrated in the subgroup of patients without renal dysfunction (n = 59), where high urinary L-FABP levels were associated with the progression of diabetic nephropathy.CONCLUSIONSUrinary L-FABP accurately reflected the severity of diabetic nephropathy in type 2 diabetes, and its level was high in the patients with normoalbuminuria. Moreover, higher urinary L-FABP was a risk factor for progression of diabetic nephropathy.

BackgroundThis study evaluated the validity and inter- and intraclinician reliability of (1) the Japanese Society of Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) standard rating system for four sites [ankle-hindfoot (AH), midfoot (MF), hallux (HL), and lesser toe (LT)] and the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) foot and ankle scale and (2) the Japanese Orthopaedic Association’s foot rating scale (JOA scale).MethodsClinicians from the same institute independently evaluated participating patients from their institute by two evaluations at a 1- to 4-week interval. Statistical evaluation was as follows. (1) The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated from data collected from at least two examinations of each patient by at least two evaluating clinicians (Data A). (2) Total scores for the two evaluations were determined from the distribution of differences in data between the two evaluations (Data B); each item was evaluated by determining Cohen’s coefficient of agreement. (3) The relation between patient satisfaction and total score was investigated only for patients who underwent surgery (Data C). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was obtained.ResultsParticipants were 65 clinicians and 610 patients, including those with disorders of the AH (313), MF (47), HL (153), and LT (50) and those with RA (47). From Data A, the ICC was high for AH and HL by JSSF scales and for AH, MF, and LT by the JOA scale. From Data B, the coefficient showed high validity for both scales for AH, with almost no difference between the two scales; the validity for HL was higher with the JOA scale than with the JSSF scale. From Data C, correlations were significant between patient satisfaction and outcome for AH and HL by the JSSF scales and for AH, HL, and LT by the JOA scale.ConclusionsThe validity of both scales was high. Clinical evaluation of the therapeutic results using these scales would be highly reliable.

BackgroundThe Japanese Society for Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) is developing a QOL questionnaire instrument for use in pathological conditions related to the foot and ankle. The main body of the outcome instrument (the Self-Administered Foot Evaluation Questionnaire, SAFE-Q version 2) consists of 34 questionnaire items, which provide five subscale scores (1: Pain and Pain-Related; 2: Physical Functioning and Daily Living; 3: Social Functioning; 4: Shoe-Related; and 5: General Health and Well-Being). In addition, the instrument has nine optional questionnaire items that provide a Sports Activity subscale score. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the SAFE-Q.Patients and methodsVersion 2 of the SAFE-Q was administered to 876 patients and 491 non-patients, and the test-retest reliability was evaluated for 131 patients. In addition, the SF-36 questionnaire and the JSSF Scale scoring form were administered to all of the participants. Subscale scores were scaled such that the final sum of scores ranged between zero (least healthy) to 100 (healthiest).ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients were larger than 0.7 for all of the scores. The means of the five subscale scores were between 60 and 75. The five subscales easily separated patients from non-patients. The coefficients for the correlations of the subscale scores with the scores on the JSSF Scale and the SF-36 subscales were all highly statistically significantly greater than zero (p < 0.001). The means for the five JSSF Scale classification groups fell within a relatively narrow range, indicating that the SAFE-Q labels are sufficiently similar to permit their use for all of the JSSF Scale classifications.ConclusionThe present study revealed that the test-retest reliability is high for each subscale. Consequently, the SAFE-Q is valid and reliable. In the future, it will be beneficial to test the responsiveness of the SAFE-Q.

Purpose: It is not clear whether women with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) live significantly longer than men. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis of published studies to quantitatively compare NSCLC survival data between genders. Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE Web search for computer-archived bibliographic data regarding overall survival differences between genders was performed. DerSimonian-Laird random effects analysis was used to estimate the pooled hazard ratio (HR). Results: We selected 39 articles as appropriate data sources, involving 86 800 patients including 32 701 women and 54 099 men. Combined HRs for women vs. men in studies using univariate and multivariate analyses respectively were 0.79 (p <0.0001) and 0.78 (p <0.0001). Pooled HRs for 3 study subgroups having (1) fewer than 30% stage I cases, (2) fewer than 50% adenocarcinoma cases, and (3) statistical adjustment for smoking status all indicated the survival advantage of women. Conclusion: This meta-analysis of published data concerning NSCLC patients indicated significantly better survival for women.