Oncology Section EDGE Task Force on Urogenital Cancer Outcomes: Clinical Measures of Lymphedema—A Systematic Review
Rehabilitation Oncology, Vol: 35, Issue: 3
2017
- 562Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage562
- Downloads535
- Abstract Views27
Article Description
Background: Valid and reliable tools to assess lymphedema are necessary to accurately evaluate status and to objectively document and measure the results of interventions. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of each measure can inform the clinician's choice of the appropriate tool to be used in the clinic or research setting. Purpose: To identify reliable and valid measurement techniques that are sensitive to change for assessing edema volume or soft tissue change in the lower extremities or genital region of patients with lymphedema. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the published psychometric properties and clinical feasibility of each method identified. Task Force members independently reviewed each measure using the Cancer EDGE Rating Form. Results: Both water displacement and circumferential measurement methods by tape measure were rated as Highly Recommended to quantify lower-extremity limb volume. Water displacement was determined to be the criterion standard by which all other assessments of volume are benchmarked. Both optoelectric volumetry and bioelectric impedance analysis were rated as Recommended, and ultrasound was rated Not Recommended. Conclusion: The Urogenital Cancer EDGE Task Force highly recommends water displacement and circumferential tape measurement for use as reliable methods for assessment and documentation of change of limb volume in this patient population. Early detection of subclinical lower-extremity lymphedema in this patient population remains challenging, as there is no “index” limb that can be proven to be uninvolved in a patient population with documented pelvic node dissection/irradiation. No articles were found to support valid and reliable genital lymphedema volume measurement.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know