Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164942›Full record

SynthesisBreast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)2025

Wrapping up the evidence: bandaging in breast cancer-related lymphedema-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Celia García-Chico, Susana López-Ortiz, Carmen Lorenzo-Crespo, José Pinto-Fraga, Alejandro Santos-Lozano, Ana Domínguez-García

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Impact of cancer-related and primary lymphedema and compression bandaging on limb range of motion: a cross-sectional study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    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.

Celia García-Chicoi+HeALTH Strategic Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-0743-1283
Susana López-Ortizi+HeALTH Strategic Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain. slopezo@uemc.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9758-8239
Carmen Lorenzo-CrespoDepartment of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.
José Pinto-Fragai+HeALTH Strategic Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8179-9253
Alejandro Santos-Lozanoi+HeALTH Strategic Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2309-3583
Ana Domínguez-GarcíaDepartment of Health Sciences, Miguel de Cervantes European University, 47012, Valladolid, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1545-5529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe standard approach for breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is Complex Decongestive Therapy. This therapy involves various components, including the use of compression bandages to reduce swelling. Among these, multilayer bandage is the most frequently applied bandage in these patients. Nevertheless, alternative bandaging methods may also be effective. The current systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the effectiveness of different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL.

methodsA search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify RCTs that analyzed different bandaging techniques in patients with BCRL. The methodological quality of the RCTs was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, with standardized mean differences (SMDs) calculated by comparing change scores and standard deviations between intervention and control groups. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024597170).

resultsA total of 21 RCTs were included in the systematic review (n = 1122) and five could be meta-analyzed (n = 239). The meta-analysis did not reveal significant differences in the reduction of the affected arm volume among different bandaging techniques, including multilayer, kinesio-taping, cohesive, and alginate bandage [SMD = - 0.04, 95% confidence interval - 0.30 to 0.21; p = 0.750; I

conclusionsThe current scientific evidence does not suggest a clear advantage of one bandaging technique over another, including kinesio-taping and multilayer bandages. Further studies with larger sample sizes are warranted to better understand their potential benefits across the different stages and phases of BCRL management.

Indexed as

BandagesBreast Cancer LymphedemaBreast NeoplasmsCompression BandagesFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeBandagesKinesiotapeNeoplasmsPhysiotherapyRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID40164942

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.