FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2022428272> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2022428272 endingPage "45" @default.
• W2022428272 startingPage "44" @default.
• W2022428272 abstract "Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) defined by imaging or reduced ankle blood pressure affects around 20% of the elderly population; however, only around 6% report symptoms of intermittent claudication.1Meijer W.T. Hoes A.W. Rutgers D. Bots M.L. Hofman A. Grobbee D.E. Peripheral arterial disease in the elderly: The Rotterdam Study.Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 1998; 18: 185-192Google Scholar Thus, while the results of imaging may give information relevant to the risk of cardiovascular events and the technical success of an invasive intervention on patients with peripheral vascular disease, it will not provide a measure of symptomatic outcome. Two types of outcome measures have been suggested in patients with intermittent claudication, namely objective measures of walking distance and subjective symptomatic assessments.2TransAtlantic Inter-Society ConsensusManagement of peripheral arterial disease.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000; 19: S34-S39Google Scholar The need for patient-assessed health outcomes of intermittent claudication has been appreciated for some time and has led to the increasing use of both generic and more specific health-related quality of life questionnaires.3Golledge J. Garratt A. Greenhalgh R.M. Davies A.H. Patient-assessed health outcomes in peripheral arterial disease.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2000; 19: 109-110Google Scholar The most frequently utilised and relevant generic quality of life questionnaire is the Short Form-36 (SF-36).4Beattie D.K. Golledge J. Greenhalgh R.M. Davies A.H. Quality of life assessment in vascular disease: towards a consensus.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1997; 13: 9-13Google Scholar Such generic instruments have the advantage of being well validated for the overall assessment of quality of life but may not provide information specific to intermittent claudication and thereby, not be responsive to changes after therapeutic interventions. In order to improve outcome assessment of intermittent claudication, a number of disease-specific questionnaires have been developed.5Morgan M.B. Crayford T. Murrin B. Fraser S.C. Developing the vascular quality of life questionnaire: a new disease-specific quality of life measure for use in lower limb ischemia.J Vasc Surg. 2001; 33: 679-687Google Scholar, 6Spengel F.A. Brown T.M. Dietze S. Kirchberger I. Comte S. The claudication scale (CLAU-S): a new disease-specific quality of life instrument in intermittent claudication.Dis Manage Health Outcomes. 1997; 2: 65-70Google Scholar, 7Chong P.F. Garratt A.M. Golledge J. Greenhalgh R.M. Davies A.H. The intermittent claudication questionnaire: a patient-assessed condition-specific health outcome measure.J Vasc Surg. 2002; 36 ([discussion 863–864]): 764-771Google Scholar In this issue of The European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Mehta and colleagues report a study in which various disease-specific and generic questionnaires are compared as outcome measures for 70 patients undergoing treatment of intermittent claudication.8Mehta T. Venkata Subramaniam A.V. Chetter I. McCollum P. Assessing the validity and responsiveness of disease-specific quality of life instruments in intermittent claudication.Eur J Vasc Endovasc. 2005; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.08.028Google Scholar The authors correlate the questionnaire scores with each other and also with treadmill assessments of intermittent claudication distance (ICD) and maximal walking distance (MWD). Mehta et al. also analyse how these assessments change in response to treatment. Assessment of the validity and responsiveness of such questionnaires is not straightforward. Since there is no current gold standard for outcome assessment in intermittent claudication it is contentious as to what measures should be compared with the quality of life (QOL) scores. As in previous validation studies, the authors have used the ICD and MWD determined during a treadmill-walking test as the criterion measures. This is reasonable given that improving functional capacity is a primary goal of therapy in patients with intermittent claudication. However, this also assumes that QOL in PVD patients is determined only by their walking tolerance, which is not likely to be the case; moreover, there will also be natural variance between QOL and functional capacity. The methods used to determine ICD and MWD also impact upon their usefulness as criterion measures. Constant load walking tests, such as that used by Mehta et al., have been shown by some to be more variable than incremental walking tests.9Gardner A.W. Skinner J.S. Cantwell B.W. Kent-Smith L. Progressive versus single-stage treadmill tests for evaluation of claudication.Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1991; 23: 402-408Google Scholar, 10Labs K.H. Nehler M.R. Roessner M. Jaeger K.A. Hiatt W.R. Reliability of treadmill testing in peripheral arterial disease: a comparison of a constant load with a graded load treadmill protocol.Vasc Med. 1999; 4: 239-246Google Scholar Furthermore, the magnitude and variability of MWD and ICD changes with test familiarisation or training and can be influenced by subtle test protocol variations.11Gardner A.W. Skinner J.S. Smith L.K. Effects of handrail support on claudication and hemodynamic responses to single-stage and progressive treadmill protocols in peripheral vascular occlusive disease.Am J Cardiol. 1991; 68: 99-105Google Scholar For this reason, it is recommended that a stable baseline for treadmill walking distances be achieved prior to clinical trials,12Labs K.H. Dormandy J.A. Jaeger K.A. Stuerzebecher C.S. Hiatt W.R. Transatlantic Conference on Clinical Trial Guidelines in Peripheral Arterial Disease: clinical trial methodology. Basel PAD Clinical Trial Methodology Group.Circulation. 1999; 100: e75-e81Google Scholar and the same should be done when these measures are being used as a criterion measure to validate QOL assessment tools. While the authors tested validity against MWD, they assessed the responsiveness of the QOL measures with the International Society of Cardio Vascular Surgery criteria, which were designed to assess the outcomes of revascularisation procedures and include ankle pressure criteria. Using this approach Mehta and colleagues conclude that the VASCUQOL is the most responsive disease-specific questionnaire and, therefore, recommend its use in clinical practice. Support for this recommendation is provided in a recent study by de Vries and colleagues, in which they compared the SF-36, the EUROQUOL and the VASCUQOL in over 400 patients with intermittent claudication.13de Vries M. Ouwendijk R. Kessels A.G. de Haan M.W. Flobbe K. Hunink M.G. et al.Comparison of generic and disease-specific questionnaires for the assessment of quality of life in patients with peripheral arterial disease.J Vasc Surg. 2005; 41: 261-268Google Scholar Using different analysis methods, de Vries et al. reported the VASCUQOL to be more responsive to changes in intermittent claudication symptoms than the generic instruments.13de Vries M. Ouwendijk R. Kessels A.G. de Haan M.W. Flobbe K. Hunink M.G. et al.Comparison of generic and disease-specific questionnaires for the assessment of quality of life in patients with peripheral arterial disease.J Vasc Surg. 2005; 41: 261-268Google Scholar The VASCUQOL was originally developed as a disease-specific quality of life measure for lower limb ischaemia.5Morgan M.B. Crayford T. Murrin B. Fraser S.C. Developing the vascular quality of life questionnaire: a new disease-specific quality of life measure for use in lower limb ischemia.J Vasc Surg. 2001; 33: 679-687Google Scholar Around half of the patients used in the development and validation of this instrument had rest pain, ischaemic ulceration or gangrene and, therefore, the resultant 25 item questionnaire includes some questions related to pain at rest, ulceration and limb loss. Since, these questions are not very relevant to patients with intermittent claudication, and were not associated with disease deterioration in Mehta and colleagues study, it could be argued that a more specific questionnaire is warranted. Chong and colleagues developed a quality of life instrument specific for intermittent claudication in 124 patients and reported good validity and responsiveness by comparison to symptoms and generic instruments.7Chong P.F. Garratt A.M. Golledge J. Greenhalgh R.M. Davies A.H. The intermittent claudication questionnaire: a patient-assessed condition-specific health outcome measure.J Vasc Surg. 2002; 36 ([discussion 863–864]): 764-771Google Scholar The resultant questionnaire has the advantage of being time efficient and relevant to intermittent claudication as it includes only 16 items related to the effect of leg pain on activity. A study comparing the VASCUQOL and intermittent claudication questionnaire is required. Mehta and colleagues should be commended for attempting to bring about standardisation in the use of patient-focused assessment techniques. To reach this end, a better understanding of the determinants of QOL in patients with PVD of varying severity is required. Studies adopting reliable criterion measures and assessments of other validated measures of disease specific QOL, such as the intermittent claudication questionnaire, would be advisable prior to making firm conclusions on the most appropriate disease-specific quality of life instrument to assess intermittent claudication. JG is supported by funding from the NHMRC (279408) and the NIH (R01 HL080010-01)." @default.
• W2022428272 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2022428272 creator A5043193388 @default.
• W2022428272 creator A5069835736 @default.
• W2022428272 creator A5076250987 @default.
• W2022428272 creator A5081735415 @default.
• W2022428272 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2022428272 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W2022428272 title "Outcome Assessment for Intermittent Claudication" @default.
• W2022428272 cites W1921637588 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W1989769687 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W1990496653 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2019777979 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2032517479 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2050474359 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2053667483 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2065886428 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2074641075 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2076353945 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2093397264 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W2101037537 @default.
• W2022428272 cites W3040054763 @default.
• W2022428272 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2005.09.001" @default.
• W2022428272 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16202628" @default.
• W2022428272 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2022428272 type Work @default.
• W2022428272 sameAs 2022428272 @default.
• W2022428272 citedByCount "4" @default.
• W2022428272 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2022428272 hasAuthorship W2022428272A5043193388 @default.
• W2022428272 hasAuthorship W2022428272A5069835736 @default.
• W2022428272 hasAuthorship W2022428272A5076250987 @default.
• W2022428272 hasAuthorship W2022428272A5081735415 @default.
• W2022428272 hasBestOaLocation W20224282721 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C144237770 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C148220186 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C1862650 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C2777466421 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C2778963770 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C2779881954 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C3018348675 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C141071460 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C144237770 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C148220186 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C1862650 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C2777466421 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C2778963770 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C2779881954 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C3018348675 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C33923547 @default.
• W2022428272 hasConceptScore W2022428272C71924100 @default.
• W2022428272 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2022428272 hasLocation W20224282721 @default.
• W2022428272 hasLocation W20224282722 @default.
• W2022428272 hasOpenAccess W2022428272 @default.
• W2022428272 hasPrimaryLocation W20224282721 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W1969239345 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2002216275 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2019002656 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2063824584 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2138328889 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2139755348 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2145616286 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W2738093619 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W4280563894 @default.
• W2022428272 hasRelatedWork W4283711709 @default.
• W2022428272 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W2022428272 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2022428272 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2022428272 magId "2022428272" @default.
• W2022428272 workType "article" @default.