[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Invited Commentary
October 19, 2016

Decisive Steps Toward Patient-Reported Outcomes for Claudication—Tread Lightly or Full Steam Ahead?

Author Affiliations
  • 1Section of Vascular Surgery, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
  • 2Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vermont
  • 3Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, New Hampshire
  • 4The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
  • 5currently with the Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Wake Forest University, Winston Salem, North Carolina
JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):e162084. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2084

In their article “Effectiveness of a Medical vs Revascularization Intervention for Intermittent Leg Claudication Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes” in this issue of JAMA Surgery, Devine and colleagues1 embark on a challenging task in surgical outcomes assessment in their study comparing medical and invasive treatments for patients with claudication. What was the challenge? Their outcomes assessment focused not on target-lesion revascularization, ankle brachial index, or another easily measured but questionably important clinical outcome. Rather, they assessed quality of life for patients with claudication using 3 validated surveys that directly measure these patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

Add or change institution