| Title |
Low-level laser therapy in secondary lymphedema after breast cancer: systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-012-1240-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariana Toledo Biscaia Raposo Mourão e Lima, Januário Gomes Mourão e Lima, Mauro Figueiredo Carvalho de Andrade, Anke Bergmann |
| Abstract |
Complex physical therapy is the main treatment for the secondary lymphedema after breast cancer. The low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been used in order to stimulate lymphangiogenesis, encourage lymphatic motility, and reduce lymphostatic fibrosis. However, these factors could also favor the development of recurrence and metastasis. The objective of this study is to discuss the use of LLLT in the treatment of lymphedema after breast cancer. This study utilized a systematic review on the use of LLLT in the treatment of lymphedema after breast cancer. Evaluating quality of articles was conducted through the PEDro scale. Of the 41 articles identified, four were considered to be of high methodological quality (score ≥ 5). The low-level laser in the axillary region was performed in all studies. The control group was not similar across studies. The results presented showed that there was a reduction in limb volume in the group subjected to low-power laser when compared with other treatments. No studies have evaluated the risk of metastasis or relapse in the irradiated areas. Because no studies have included the complex physical therapy as the comparison group, we cannot claim that laser treatment is the best efficacy or effectiveness in lymphedema treatment after breast cancer. No studies have evaluated the hypothesis that the LLLT can increase the risk of recurrence or metastasis. Therefore, the questions about the safety of this procedure in cancer patients remain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 76 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 39% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2012.
All research outputs
#18,323,689
of 22,689,790 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#865
of 1,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,989
of 277,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,689,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.