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).
Goodney PP, Corriere MA. Decisive Steps Toward Patient-Reported Outcomes for Claudication—Tread Lightly or Full Steam Ahead? JAMA Surg. 2016;151(10):e162084. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.2084
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: