SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
The diagnostic accuracy of soft tissue oedema measurements: a systematic review and best-evidence synthesis.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. 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.
- Objective Severity, Pain and Range-of-Motion Limitation in Breast Cancer-Related Upper-Limb Lymphedema: Associations with Patient-Reported Burden.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEffective lymphoedema management relies on early detection and treatment during its reversible phase, underlining the importance of accurate measurement tools. This systematic review aims to identify measurement instruments for quantitatively diagnosing lymphoedema and their diagnostic accuracy.
methodsLiterature was systematically searched on the diagnostic accuracy of instruments for assessing soft tissue oedema across body parts in adults. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies establishing diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and/or specificity) of instruments for quantifying oedema through volume changes, tissue characteristics, or lymphatic system function. Searches included Embase, Medline, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases from inception to March 18, 2024. Methodological quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist for criterion validity and QUADAS-2. Diagnostic value was evaluated through the Youden index, and the level of evidence was established using a new best-evidence synthesis approach.
resultsA total of 44 studies were included, identifying 14 index measurement instruments. The most frequently studied instruments were tape measurements, ultrasound, and multi-frequency bio-impedance analysis (MF-BIA). Instruments with very high diagnostic value (Youden index ≥ 0.90) included MF-BIA, perometry, and MRI. However, the quality of evidence supporting these instruments was lacking. Nine different instruments served as references, with tape measurements, consensus criteria, and water volumetry being the most applied.
conclusionThis review underscores the complexity of accurately diagnosing lymphoedema, with no single instrument emerging as a definitive gold standard. Clinicians must weigh the available evidence and consider the clinical context, such as early detection, when selecting measurement instruments for diagnosing lymphoedema.
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.