Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42835068›Full record

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.

Naihao Zhu, Jinxia Chang, Gang Cao, Rufeng Teng, Jinbang Wang, Wenyu Bu, Yanhong Peng, Jianchun Cao

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Naihao ZhuBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jinxia ChangTianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin, China.
Gang CaoBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Rufeng TengBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jinbang WangBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Wenyu BuBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Yanhong PengBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jianchun CaoBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Dongfang Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bayesian network meta-analysisbreast cancer-related lymphedemacompression therapyintermittent pneumatic compressionmanual lymphatic drainagepreventionresistance trainingshoulder range of motion

Identifiers

PMID42835068
PMCPMC13634858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.