Conclusion
PROM, intermittent claudication
INTERMITTENT CLAUDICATION
Potentially important treatment differentials were revealed when analyzing the disease-specific VascuQoL, while we did not observe any significant between-group differences for the SF-36. Whereas effect sizes for the observed changes in the SF-36 and the VascuQoL over time were generally small, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the SEP group reached the minimally important difference threshold for improvement in the VascuQoL Summary score at one year. Our study demonstrates the importance of including disease-specific instruments when evaluating PROM endpoints in patients with intermittent claudication and also emphasize the potential importance of integrating PROMs alongside more traditional endpoints in clinical trials.