Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29419623›Full record

SynthesisJBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports2018

Clinical effectiveness of decongestive treatments on excess arm volume and patient-centered outcomes in women with early breast cancer-related arm lymphedema: a systematic review.

Eunice Jeffs, Emma Ream, Cath Taylor, Debra Bick

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evidence for the clinical effectiveness of decongestive lymphoedema treatment for breast cancer-related arm lymphoedema, a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Practice patterns of physical therapists and physical therapist assistants treating patients with breast cancer related lymphedema.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eunice JeffsFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Emma ReamSchool of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom.
Cath TaylorFlorence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Debra BickFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Department of Health CDRF-2013-04-023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the effect of decongestive lymphedema treatment on excess arm volume or patient-centered outcomes in women presenting within either 12 months or a mean nine months of developing arm lymphedema following breast cancer treatment.

introductionLymphedema is a common consequence of breast cancer treatment requiring life-long treatment to reduce symptoms and prevent complications. Currently, evidence to inform the optimal decongestive lymphedema treatment package is lacking. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review included studies on women who received lymphedema treatment within either 12 months or a mean of nine months of developing unilateral breast cancer-related arm lymphedema. The intervention was any decongestive lymphedema treatment delivered with the purpose of reducing arm lymphedema, compared to another form of lymphedema treatment (whether self or practitioner-administered), placebo or no treatment. The clinical outcome was excess arm volume; patient-centered outcomes were health-related quality of life, arm heaviness, arm function, patient-perceived benefit and satisfaction with treatment. Experimental study designs were eligible, including randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, prospective and retrospective before and after studies were considered.

methodsA three-step search strategy was utilized to find published and unpublished studies. The search identified studies published from the inception of each database to July 6, 2016. Reference lists were scanned to identify further eligible studies. Studies were critically appraised using appropriate standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Details describing each study and treatment results regarding outcomes of interest were extracted from papers included in the review using appropriate standardized data extraction tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Due to heterogeneity in included studies, results for similar outcome measures were not pooled in statistical meta-analysis. A narrative and tabular format was used to synthesize results from identified and included studies.

resultsSeven studies reporting results for outcomes of interest were critically appraised and included in the review: five randomized controlled trials and two descriptive (uncontrolled) studies. Reported outcomes included excess arm volume (five studies), health-related quality of life (three studies), arm heaviness (one study), arm function (two studies) and patient-perceived benefit (two studies). There was some evidence that decongestive treatments were effective for women presenting within either 12 months or a mean of nine months of developing breast cancer-related arm lymphedema, but the wide range of data prevented comparison of treatment findings which limited our ability to answer the review questions.

conclusionsWeak evidence (grade B) for the impact of decongestive lymphedema treatment on women with early lymphedema (i.e. less than 12 months duration of BCRL symptoms) did not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the most effective treatment to be offered when these women first present for treatment. Findings provided no justification to support change to current practice.Future primary research needs to focus on the most effective treatment for women when they first present with lymphedema symptoms, e.g. treatment provided within 12 months of developing symptoms. Studies should be adequately powered and recruit women exclusively with less than 12 months duration of breast cancer-related lymphedema symptoms, provide longer follow-up to monitor treatment effect over time, with comparable treatment protocols, outcome measures and reporting methods.

Indexed as

AdultArmBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLymphedemaMiddle AgedNasal DecongestantsPatient-Centered CarePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresTreatment OutcomeNasal Decongestants

Identifiers

PMID29419623
PMCPMC5828398
OpenAlexW2766166173

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.