ArticleScientific reports2022
Microcomputed tomography versus plethysmometer and electronic caliper in the measurements of lymphedema in the hindlimb of mice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- CD27 Neutralization Attenuates Rheumatoid Arthritis by Suppressing.Biochemical genetics · 2026Article
- Murine hindlimb lymphedema model: optimization and evaluation of radiation.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2025Article
- 3D scanner's potential as a novel tool for lymphedema measurement in mouse hindlimb models.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lymphedema affects 20% of women diagnosed with breast cancer. It is a pathology with no known cure. Animal models are essential to explore possible treatments to understand and potentially cure lymphedema. The rodent hindlimb lymphedema model is one of the most widely used. Different modalities have been used to measure lymphedema in the hindlimb of mice, and these are generally poorly assessed in terms of the interrater agreement; thus, there could be a risk of measuring bias and poor reproducibility. We examined the interrater agreement of µCT-scans, electronic caliper thickness of the paw and plethysmometer in the measurement of lymphedema in the hindlimb of mice. Three independent raters assessed 24 C57BL6 mice using these three modalities four times (week 1, 2, 4 and 8) with a total of 96 samples. The mean interrater differences were then calculated. The interrater agreement was highest in the µCT-scans, with an extremely low risk of measurement bias. The interrater agreement in the plethysmometer and electronic caliper was comparable with a low to moderate risk of measurement bias. The µCT-scanner should be used whenever possible. The electronic caliper should only be used if there is no µCT-scanner available. The plethysmometer should not be used in rodents of this size.
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.