Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36763153›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2023

A systematic review of validated assessments methods for head and neck lymphedema.

Coralie R Arends, Josephine E Lindhout, Lisette van der Molen, Erica A Wilthagen, Michiel W M van den Brekel, Martijn M Stuiver

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Coralie R Arends *Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. c.arends@nki.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3750-6657
Josephine E Lindhout *Department of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lisette van der MolenDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erica A WilthagenScientific Information Service, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel W M van den BrekelDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.w.m.vandenbrekel@uva.nl.
Martijn M StuiverDepartment of Head and Neck Oncology and Surgery, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the validity and reliability of existing measurement instruments for quantifying head and neck lymphedema.

methodsFour databases were searched on January 31st, 2022. The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklists were used for the risk of bias (ROB) assessment.

resultsOut of 3362 unique records, eight studies examined the reliability and validity of five measurement instruments of which one patient reported outcome. The Patterson scale for internal lymphedema and the patient reported head and neck external lymphedema and fibrosis (LIDS-H&N) demonstrated validity and reliability. For external lymphedema, none of the instruments had good reliability for all measuring points.

conclusionThere is a lack of sufficiently reliable and valid measurement instruments for external head and neck lymphedema. The Patterson scale and the patient reported LIDS-H&N seem reliable for clinical practice and research.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsLymphedemaHeadHumansNeckReproducibility of ResultsHead and neck cancerLymphedemaMeasurementReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID36763153
PMCPMC10175329

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.