ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2024
The influence of non-cancer-related risk factors on the development of cancer-related lymphedema: a rapid review.
Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Consensus statement on non-cancer-related risk factors for development of secondary lymphedema.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2024Guideline
- Social determinants drive lymphedema severity and treatment adherence: evidence from a three-year retrospective cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extensive research supports an evidence-base for cancer treatment-related risk factors, including extent of lymph node dissection and use of radiotherapy, as contributing to secondary lymphedema. Additionally, comorbidities, such as higher body mass index, and vascular-related conditions are identified to further augment risk. While social determinants of health (SDOH) and socioeconomic factors are widely regarded as influencing an individual's healthcare outcomes, including cancer risk and survival, these factors have not been explored as risk factors for developing secondary lymphedema. A rapid literature review explored the current evidence for SDOH as risk factors for lymphedema. Studies that were published over the last 10 years and that specifically analyzed social factors as variables associated with lymphedema were included. Studies that only characterized the social determinants of the study population were not included. Forty-nine studies were identified through a rapid literature review, and 13 studies that expressly analyzed social determinants as risk factors for secondary lymphedema were reviewed and extracted. All studies were conducted in patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema. Social risk factors included race, educational level, insurance type, and income level. These are consistent with the socioeconomic inequalities related to cancer survival. SDOH may influence the risk of developing cancer treatment-related health conditions like secondary lymphedema. Research trials studying cancer treatment-related conditions should collect consistent and robust data across social, behavioral, environmental, and economic domains and should analyze these variables to understand their contribution to study endpoints. Risk prediction modeling could be a future pathway to better incorporate social determinants, along with medical and co-morbidity data, to holistically understand lymphedema risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39400761What 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.