ArticleJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2015
An algorithm to identify the development of lymphedema after breast cancer treatment.
Article in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Race/ethnicity, genetic ancestry, and breast cancer-related lymphedema in the Pathways Study.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLarge, population-based studies are needed to better understand lymphedema, a major source of morbidity among breast cancer survivors. One challenge is identifying lymphedema in a consistent fashion. We sought to develop and validate an algorithm using Medicare claims to identify lymphedema after breast cancer surgery.
methodsFrom a population-based cohort of 2,597 elderly (65+) women who underwent incident breast cancer surgery in 2003 and completed annual telephone surveys through 2008, two algorithms were developed using Medicare claims from half of the cohort and validated in the remaining half. A lymphedema-positive case was defined by patient report.
resultsA simple two ICD-9 code algorithm had 69 % sensitivity, 96 % specificity, positive predictive value >75 % if prevalence of lymphedema is >16 %, negative predictive value >90 %, and area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82 (95 % CI 0.80-0.85). A more sophisticated, multi-step algorithm utilizing diagnostic and treatment codes, logistic regression methods, and a reclassification step performed similarly to the two-code algorithm.
conclusionsGiven the similar performance of the two validated algorithms, the ease of implementing the simple algorithm and the fact that the simple algorithm does not include treatment codes, we recommend that this two-code algorithm be validated in and applied to other population-based breast cancer cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: This validated lymphedema algorithm will facilitate the conduct of large, population-based studies in key areas (incidence rates, risk factors, prevention measures, treatment, and cost/economic analyses) that are critical to advancing our understanding and management of this challenging and debilitating chronic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.