SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative effectiveness of non-surgical interventions and their combinations for the prevention of breast cancer-related lymphedema: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aims of this study were to compare the relative effectiveness of non-surgical preventive interventions and their combinations on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) incidence and shoulder abduction range of motion (ROM) using Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) and to assess the certainty of evidence using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework. Methods: Eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and SinoMed) were searched through January 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of non-surgical interventions for BCRL prevention in post-surgical breast cancer patients were included. The primary outcome was BCRL incidence, which was analyzed using a Bayesian random-effects NMA with arm-level binomial likelihood and log link (risk ratio). The primary analysis was restricted to studies with a follow-up of at least 6 months, based on evidence that the risk of BCRL in axillary lymph node dissection populations peaks at 6-12 months postoperatively. A meta-regression with follow-up duration as a covariate was conducted on the full 45-study network to validate this restriction. Shoulder abduction ROM was analyzed as a secondary outcome after data cleaning to ensure measurement homogeneity. Results: A total of 100 RCTs were included in the qualitative synthesis. The primary BCRL analysis comprised 27 studies (57 arms, 4,660 participants, 11 nodes). Seven interventions showed credible intervals excluding 1: compression therapy combined with resistance training (COMP+RT) [risk ratio (RR) = 0.146, 95% credible interval (95%CrI) = 0.057-0.366, surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) = 85.1%], RT with supervised exercise (RT+SUP-EX) (RR = 0.147, 95%CrI = 0.019-0.665, SUCRA = 80.8%), COMP with manual lymphatic drainage (COMP+MLD) (RR = 0.121, 95%CrI = 0.004-0.915, SUCRA = 80.6%), intermittent pneumatic compression with MLD (IPC+MLD) (RR = 0.255, 95%CrI = 0.153-0.397, SUCRA = 69.3%), microwave therapy (MW) (RR = 0.313, 95%CrI = 0.090-0.926, SUCRA = 57.8%), IPC (RR = 0.396, 95%CrI = 0.197-0.765, SUCRA = 47.8%), and MLD (RR = 0.467, 95%CrI = 0.320-0.650, SUCRA = 39.2%). COMP+RT ranked first in three of six analytical approaches. However, it was excluded as a sparse node under stricter diagnostic definitions. The meta-regression coefficient for follow-up duration was statistically significant ( Conclusion: COMP+RT demonstrated the most robust evidence profile among all evaluated interventions, ranking first for BCRL incidence in three of six analytical approaches and in the top four for shoulder ROM. However, its evidence base was concentrated among studies using author-defined diagnostic criteria; under stricter diagnostic definitions, COMP+RT was excluded as a sparse node. These findings should be interpreted in the context of a predominantly low certainty evidence. Confirmatory trials with standardized diagnostic criteria and follow-up of at least 12 months are needed. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261279759.
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.