Trial reportHead & neck2026
Short-Term Outcomes of Advanced Pneumatic Compression Device Versus Usual Care Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Multi-Site Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Head & neck, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04797390 (A Randomized Trial of an Advanced Pneumatic Compression Device vs. Usual Care for Head and Neck Lymphedema), which is not on this 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.
A Randomized Trial of an Advanced Pneumatic Compression Device vs. Usual Care for Head and Neck Lymphedema
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTwo-month outcomes of advanced pneumatic compression device (APCD) and usual care (UC) in Head and Neck Cancer survivors with previously untreated lymphedema were compared.
methodsParticipants in this multisite, randomized clinical trial were randomized to APCD or UC. The primary endpoint was severity of lymphedema symptoms. Secondary endpoints were anatomical lymphedema changes, biopsychosocial outcomes, and barriers to care.
resultsTwo hundred thirty-six participants were enrolled (119 APCD, 117 UC). Analysis was intention-to-treat. Lymphedema-associated symptom burden measured using the VHNSS and LSIDS was improved to a similar degree in both groups. APCD demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in external soft tissue swelling assessed by digital photography. No difference in CT imaging measures of lymphedema was noted. UC participants experienced barriers to care.
conclusionsAPCD is an effective treatment for lymphedema in HNCS. The APCD addresses clinically significant barriers to therapist guided treatment. A hybrid approach may be complementary and optimize patient outcomes.
trial registrationNCT04797390.
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.