ArticleJapanese journal of clinical oncology2025
Regional disparities in lymphedema treatment and access to complex decongestive therapy: a nationwide survey in Japan.
Article in Japanese journal of clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLymphedema has a significant impact on patient quality of life. However, it remains unclear whether the provision of lymphedema treatment in Japan is uniform across regions. This study aimed to clarify the current situation regarding lymphedema treatment with emphasis on complex decongestive therapies (CDT) availability and implementation in Japan.
methodsA nationwide web-based survey was conducted. Respondents included healthcare professionals from designated cancer care hospitals and other medical institutions treating lymphedema in Japan. The distribution of variables, including the implementation of lymphedema treatment, was compared between designated cancer care hospitals and other facilities using the chi-square test. Japan was divided into nine regions to compare and analyze access to medical institutions providing CDT for lymphedema on both inpatient and outpatient bases.
resultsOf the 372 facility responses analyzed, ˃95% reported treating secondary lymphedema of the extremities, whereas ˂30% treated head and neck lymphedema. The number of CDT inpatients per 100 000 people in the region with the lowest patient volume was approximately 2% of that in the region with the highest volume. Similarly, the number of CDT outpatients per 100 000 people in the lowest-volume region was one-third of that in the highest-volume region. There was no significant correlation between facilities with high outpatient numbers and those with low outpatient numbers (ρ =0.57, P-value = 0.11).
conclusionEliminating regional disparities in access to lymphedema treatment facilities, particularly for inpatient CDT, would improve quality of life and enable patients to manage the condition regardless of where they live.
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.