↓ Skip to main content

A Prospective Validation Study of Bioimpedance with Volume Displacement in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients at Risk for Lymphedema

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
A Prospective Validation Study of Bioimpedance with Volume Displacement in Early-Stage Breast Cancer Patients at Risk for Lymphedema
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, June 2015
DOI 10.1245/s10434-015-4683-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea V. Barrio, Anne Eaton, Thomas G. Frazier

Abstract

Although volume displacement (VD) is considered the gold standard for diagnosing breast cancer-related lymphedema, it is inconvenient. We compared bioimpedance (L-Dex) and VD measurements in a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients at risk for lymphedema. Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 223 breast cancer patients were enrolled. Following exclusions (n = 37), 186 received baseline VD and L-Dex; follow-up measurements were performed at 3-6 months intervals for 3 years. At each visit, patients fitted into one of three categories: normal (normal VD and L-Dex); abnormal L-Dex (L-Dex > 10 or increase in 10 from baseline and normal VD); or lymphedema (relative arm volume difference of >10 % by VD ± abnormal L-Dex). Change in L-Dex was plotted against change in VD; correlation was assessed using the Pearson correlation. At a median follow-up of 18.2 months, 152 patients were normal, 25 had an abnormal L-Dex, and 9 developed lymphedema without a prior L-Dex abnormality. Of the 25 abnormal L-Dex patients, 4 progressed to lymphedema, for a total of 13 patients with lymphedema. Evaluating all time points, 186 patients had 829 follow-up measurements. Sensitivity and specificity of L-Dex compared with VD were 75 and 93 %, respectively. There was no correlation between change in VD and change in L-Dex at 3 months (r = 0.31) or 6 months (r = 0.21). VD and bioimpedance demonstrated poor correlation with inconsistent overlap of measurements considered abnormal. Of patients with an abnormal L-Dex, few progressed to lymphedema; most patients with lymphedema did not have a prior L-Dex abnormality. Further studies are needed to understand the clinical significance of bioimpedance.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 12%
Engineering 3 7%
Sports and Recreations 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 15 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,475,808
of 22,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#2,628
of 6,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,220
of 264,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#32
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 264,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.