ArticlePloS one2025
A new validated Lymphoedema-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measure (LYMPROM) for adults with Lymphoedema.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in etiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of lymphedema: a comprehensive review.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new lymphoedema-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measure (LYMPROM©) was developed to help patients easily report the impact of their lymphoedema and enable lymphoedema therapists to understand what matters most to patients.
aimsThis paper describes the validation of LYMPROM© for adults with lymphoedema.
methodsA multi-phased iterative review was undertaken to investigate the reliability and validity of LYMPROM©. Face and content validity were reviewed by surveying patient representatives and healthcare professionals, along with the validity of LYMPROM© Cymraeg, a Welsh translation. Following COSMIN guidelines, validation study phases used anonymised routinely collected data to examine internal consistency, structural validity, construct validity (compared with the EQ5D-5L), measurement error, test-retest reliability and responsiveness.
resultsLYMPROM© demonstrated validity (content and construct) and reliability (test-retest, internal consistency). All items were regarded as relevant, comprehensive and clear, with item content validity index (CVI) between 0.83 to 1.00, and average overall assessment of 0.94. Robust development of LYMPROM© Cymraeg ensured appropriate translation into Welsh. LYMPROM© item scores, with means and medians generally in the lower half of the scale, were positively correlated, as were three (Physical health, Social health and Emotional health) domain scores (domain correlations: 0.595 to 0.812). LYMPROM© total and domain scores showed moderate negative correlations (-0.577 to -0.435) with EQ5D-5L measures. LYMPROM© total and domain scores showed good test-retest (within two weeks) properties, with little or no change in mean or median scores, and strong positive correlations between test and retest scores (Total: 0.919; Physical health domain: 0.922; Social health domain: 0.889; Emotional health domain: 0.820). LYMPROM© showed good responsiveness, with strong, positive correlations between total and domain initial and repeat (between four weeks and seven months later) scores, with a slight reduction in scores (-3.8 to -2.0 units) and some indication of relationships between reduction and time interval (Total: p = 0.025; Physical health domain: 0.034; Social health domain: 0.181; Emotional health domain: 0.009).
conclusionEvidence shows that LYMPROM© offers a reliable and valid tool for use in clinical practice. Scores on three domains allow a more granular assessment of the patient's view of their condition; these scores and the total LYMPROM© score exhibit moderate correlations with more generic EQ5D-5L measures. Further research will explore relationships between patient-level characteristics and LYMPROM© responses, and extend initial work on its cross-cultural validity.
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.