Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31571265›Full record

SynthesisMicrosurgery2019

Efficacy and safety assessment of lymphovenous anastomosis in patients with primary and secondary lymphoedema: A systematic review of prospective evidence.

Katharina Rosian, Michal Stanak

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Microsurgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katharina RosianLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0255-9874
Michal StanakLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0313-0997
Austrian Institute for Health Technology Assessment GmbH · ATUniversity of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLymphoedema is a chronic, debilitating condition caused by an affected lymphatic system. Supermicrosurgical techniques like lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) have gained popularity because of its minimal invasiveness, better aesthetic outcome, and lower costs in comparison to physical medicine. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of LVA in comparison to conservative or other surgical treatments for primary or secondary lymphoedema patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in four databases in December 2017. We applied a methodological framework based on the HTA Core Model®. According to the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) scheme, we synthesized the data on each selected outcome category. The studies were systematically assessed for risk of bias (RoB) using the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized controlled studies (RoBANS) and the Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Risk of Bias checklist for case series.

resultsA total of 629 citations were identified and five studies were assessed eligible for final inclusion (one non-randomized controlled trial and four prospective single-arm studies). Across the studies, 217 patients were enrolled. All studies showed a moderate to high RoB. The strength of evidence for the effectiveness and safety of LVA is "very low." Due to the methodological shortcomings of the available evidence, no conclusions can be made about the effectiveness of the procedure.

conclusionLVA might be a safe technique for patients with primary and secondary lymphoedema-particularly because no serious complications were reported. Furthermore, LVA may have a role in the prevention of lymphoedema.

Indexed as

Anastomosis, SurgicalHumansLymphatic VesselsLymphedemaProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeVascular Surgical ProceduresVeins

Identifiers

PMID31571265
PMCPMC6899961
OpenAlexW2978546234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.