In a 2026 study I conducted with colleagues on people with peripheral arterial disease, one participant described how leg pain had disrupted his golf for years. It forced him to stop mid-round, shake his leg and apologise to his playing partners while he waited for the pain to pass. He found it mortifying. Then he tried a small electrical device that delivered gentle pulses through pads stuck to his skin. He still had pain. But he could get round the course.

When we measured his walking on a treadmill, we found no improvement. He had not noticed. That was not the outcome that mattered to him. Before the study ended, he had already gone out and ordered his own device.

A different participant reached the opposite conclusion. The pain was still there when he used the device, he said. It had not done him any good. And he was right, in a narrow sense. The device had not eliminated his pain. What it had done was reduce its intensity and delay its onset, allowing him to walk measurably further. His expectation of complete relief meant that genuine, partial relief felt like failure. He concluded the treatment did not work.

The study did not tell a simple story of success or failure. For some participants, standard treadmill measures did not capture what had changed in daily life. For others, measurable improvements still failed to feel meaningful because they fell short of what the person had hoped for. The........

© The Conversation