Please select the outcome measures that correspond to the clinical trial below.
Title: Pain Exposure Physical Therapy Or Conservative Therapy for Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I
Brief Summary: The current Dutch CBO guideline treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I (CRPS-1) is very disappointing with chronification, disability and subsequent high medical costs and personal suffering. A possible better treatment is intensive function-oriented physical therapy or Pain Exposure in Physical Therapy (PEPT). However, there are no adequate studies performed that demonstrate the efficacy of PEPT and therefore PEPT is lacking in the Dutch CBO CRPS-1 guidelines. Despite a lacking scientific argumentation, the PEPT approach or Macedonian therapy, is now being adopted on a large scale among physical therapists in The Netherlands. There are two level C retrospective cohort studies demonstrating a promising and clinical relevant beneficial effect on pain and function after PEPT. In response to the growing demand for scientific argumentation among doctors and physical therapists with respect to the efficacy of PEPT, we conducted a pilot study at the UMC St Radboud Nijmegen. The results of this pilot study were very promising and therefore, we decided to design a large RCT to investigate the treatment effects and costs in CRPS patients treated with PEPT compared to CRPS patients treated with usual therapy according to the Dutch CBO guidelines.


Options:
A: Responder rate (1 month post-implant)
B: Patient's Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
C: Change From Baseline to Study Endpoint in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 13 or up to study discontinuation (Study Endpoint)); Change From Baseline to Study Endpoint in Mean Weekly Pain Scores by Groups of Subjects With Expected Similar Plasma Concentrations (From baseline to Week 13 or up to study discontinuation (Study Endpoint)); Number of Responders (From baseline to Week 13 or up to study discontinuation (Study Endpoint)); Change From Baseline at Week 1 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 1); Change From Baseline at Week 2 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 2); Change From Baseline at Week 3 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 3); Change From Baseline at Week 4 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 4); Change From Baseline at Week 5 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 5); Change From Baseline at Week 6 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 6); Change From Baseline at Week 7 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 7); Change From Baseline at Week 8 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 8); Change From Baseline at Week 9 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 9); Change From Baseline at Week 10 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 10); Change From Baseline at Week 11 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 11); Change From Baseline at Week 12 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 12); Change From Baseline at Week 13 in Mean Weekly Pain Scores (From baseline to Week 13)
D: Primary outcome measure is the Impairment level SumScore (ISS): pain, active range of motion and temperature, measured with VAS, McGill Pain Questionnaire, goniometry of mobility of joints and skin thermometer (t=0; t= 3 months; t= 6 months; t= 9 months)

Answer: D