ArticleBiosensors2025
Evaluation of Smartphones Equipped with Light Detection and Ranging Technology for Circumferential and Volumetric Measurements in Lower Extremity Lymphedema.
Article in Biosensors, 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.
- Natural History of Subclinical Lower Limb Lymphedema After Gynecologic Cancer Surgery Using Indocyanine Green Lymphography.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Lower extremity lymphedema (LEL) requires precise limb measurements for treatment evaluation and compression garment design. Tape measurement (TM) is the standard method but is time-consuming. Smartphones with light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology may offer fast and efficient alternatives for three-dimensional imaging and measurement. This study evaluated the accuracy, reliability, and time efficiency of LiDAR measurements compared with those of TM in patients with LEL. A healthy volunteer and 55 patients were included. Circumferences of the foot, ankle, calf, knee, and thigh and the volume were measured using TM and smartphones with LiDAR. The water displacement method was used to validate volume measurements. The measurement time, reliability, correlation, agreement, and systematic differences between the methods were assessed. LiDAR showed excellent reliability in the healthy volunteer (inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients: 0.960-0.988) and significantly reduced the measurement time compared with TM (64.0 ± 15.1 vs. 115.3 ± 30.6 s). In patients with LEL, strong correlations and agreements were observed for ankle, calf, and knee measurements. However, foot and thigh measurements showed lower correlations and larger discrepancies. LiDAR has excellent accuracy and reliability in measuring the circumference and volume of the lower leg and has the potential to reduce the time required to acquire data. Limitations include lower accuracy for foot and thigh measurements and the current workflow complexity, which requires the use of multiple software tools.
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.