Evaluation of outcome measures for neurogenic claudication
A patient-centered approach
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments
![Loading Loading](https://n.neurology.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/panels_ajax_tab/images/loading.gif)
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
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.
GLOSSARY
- NRS=
- numeric rating scale;
- PRO=
- patient-reported outcome;
- SSS=
- Swiss Spinal Stenosis;
- Tfirst=
- time to first moderate pain intensity
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
- Received March 22, 2015.
- Accepted in final form June 11, 2015.
- © 2015 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
For assistance, please contact:
AAN Members (800) 879-1960 or (612) 928-6000 (International)
Non-AAN Member subscribers (800) 638-3030 or (301) 223-2300 option 3, select 1 (international)
Sign Up
Information on how to subscribe to Neurology and Neurology: Clinical Practice can be found here
Purchase
Individual access to articles is available through the Add to Cart option on the article page. Access for 1 day (from the computer you are currently using) is US$ 39.00. Pay-per-view content is for the use of the payee only, and content may not be further distributed by print or electronic means. The payee may view, download, and/or print the article for his/her personal, scholarly, research, and educational use. Distributing copies (electronic or otherwise) of the article is not allowed.
Letters: Rapid online correspondence
REQUIREMENTS
You must ensure that your Disclosures have been updated within the previous six months. Please go to our Submission Site to add or update your Disclosure information.
Your co-authors must send a completed Publishing Agreement Form to Neurology Staff (not necessary for the lead/corresponding author as the form below will suffice) before you upload your comment.
If you are responding to a comment that was written about an article you originally authored:
You (and co-authors) do not need to fill out forms or check disclosures as author forms are still valid
and apply to letter.
Submission specifications:
- Submissions must be < 200 words with < 5 references. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- Submissions should not have more than 5 authors. (Exception: original author replies can include all original authors of the article)
- Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Dr. Emily Gilmore and Dr. Rachel Beekman
► Watch
Alert Me
Recommended articles
-
Article
Double-blind, randomized, controlled, crossover trial of pregabalin for neurogenic claudicationJohn D. Markman, Maria E. Frazer, Shirley A. Rast et al.Neurology, December 10, 2014 -
Articles
Botulinum toxin A and chronic low back painA randomized, double-blind studyLeslie Foster, Larry Clapp, Marleigh Erickson et al.Neurology, May 22, 2001 -
Articles
Pain in Guillain-Barré syndromeA long-term follow-up studyL. Ruts, J. Drenthen, J.L.M. Jongen et al.Neurology, September 22, 2010 -
Medical Hypotheses
Individual differences in endogenous pain modulation as a risk factor for chronic painRobert R. Edwards et al.Neurology, August 08, 2005