Neurology · 2015
Evaluation of outcome measures for neurogenic claudication: A patient-centered approach.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Markman John D, Gewandter Jennifer S, Frazer Maria E, Pittman Christine, Cai Xueya, Patel Kushang V, Jahromi Babak S, Dworkin Robert H, Burke Laurie B, Farrar John T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis would prefer a treatment that makes it possible for them to walk farther or walk with less pain; to examine associations between this treatment preference and patient-reported and in-clinic treadmill testing measures of walking ability and walking-associated pain.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 269 patients with neurogenic claudication were asked to report their pain intensity when walking, complete the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, rank their outcome preferences for treatment, and undergo standardized treadmill testing, including measures of final pain rating and time to first pain of moderate intensity (Tfirst). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient preferences for treatment outcome. Associations between self-report questionnaires and standardized treadmill testing outcomes were evaluated using Spearman correlations.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of patients expressed a preference for treatment that allowed them to walk with less pain. Preference for reduced pain was associated with higher pain during daily walking, along with a shorter Tfirst and higher final pain severity on treadmill testing. In contrast, patient preference for treatment outcome was not associated with self-reported measures of daily walking capacity or walking distance on the treadmill.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with neurogenic claudication prioritized walking with reduced pain over walking farther. Reduction in pain while walking may therefore constitute a sufficient patient-focused treatment outcome for the majority of these patients. These results have implications for clinical trial design and assessment of treatment efficacy in neurogenic claudication.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 269 patients with neurogenic claudication were asked to report their pain intensity when walking, complete the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, rank their outcome preferences for treatment, and undergo standardized treadmill testing, including measures of final pain rating and time to first pain of moderate intensity (Tfirst). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient preferences for treatment outcome. Associations between self-report questionnaires and standardized treadmill testing outcomes were evaluated using Spearman correlations.
RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of patients expressed a preference for treatment that allowed them to walk with less pain. Preference for reduced pain was associated with higher pain during daily walking, along with a shorter Tfirst and higher final pain severity on treadmill testing. In contrast, patient preference for treatment outcome was not associated with self-reported measures of daily walking capacity or walking distance on the treadmill.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with neurogenic claudication prioritized walking with reduced pain over walking farther. Reduction in pain while walking may therefore constitute a sufficient patient-focused treatment outcome for the majority of these patients. These results have implications for clinical trial design and assessment of treatment efficacy in neurogenic claudication.