ArticleBMJ open2020
Improving the quality of life of patients with breast cancer-related lymphoedema by lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA): study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02790021 (Improving the Quality of Life of Patients With Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema by Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Improving the Quality of Life of Patients With Breast Cancer-related Lymphedema by Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis (LVA): A Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microsurgical versus complex physical decongestive therapy for chronic breast cancer-related lymphoedema.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of lymphaticovenous anastomosis versus conservative therapy for breast cancer-related lymphoedema: secondary outcome analysis of a randomized clinical trial.The British journal of surgery · 2026Trial
- The 6 month interim analysis of a randomized controlled trial assessing the quality of life in patients with breast cancer related lymphedema undergoing lymphaticovenous anastomosis vs. conservative therapy.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Article
- Article
- Physiotherapy practice in lymphoedema in South Africa: A survey.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2023Article
- Outcomes following lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) for 100 cases of lymphedema: results over 24-months follow-up.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly breast cancer detection and advancements in treatment options have resulted in an increase of breast cancer survivors. An increasing number of women are living with the long-term effects of breast cancer treatment, making the quality of survivorship an increasingly important goal. Breast cancer-related lymphoedema (BCRL) is one of the most underestimated complications of breast cancer treatment with a reported incidence of 20%. A microsurgical technique called lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA) might be a promising treatment modality for patients with BCRL. The main objective is to assess whether LVA is more effective than the current standard therapy (conservative treatment) in terms of improvement in quality of life and weather it is cost-effective. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, randomised controlled trial, carried out in two academic and two community hospitals in the Netherlands. The study population includes 120 women over the age of 18 who have undergone treatment for breast cancer including axillary treatment (sentinel lymph node biopsy or axillary lymph node dissection) and/or axillary radiotherapy, presenting with an early stage lymphoedema of the arm, viable lymphatic vessels and received at least 3 months conservative treatment. Sixty participants will undergo the LVA operation and the other sixty will continue their regular conservative treatment, both with a follow-up of 24 months. The primary outcome is the health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes are societal costs, quality adjusted life years, cost-effectiveness ratio, discontinuation rate of conservative treatment and excess limb volume. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Maastricht University Medical Center (METC) on 19 December 2018 (NL67059.068.18). The results of this study will be disseminated in presentations at academic conferences, publications in peer-reviewed journals and other news media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02790021; Pre-results.
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.