↓ Skip to main content

Clinical effectiveness of decongestive treatments on excess arm volume and patient-centered outcomes in women with early breast cancer-related arm lymphedema

Overview of attention for article published in JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 701)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 X users

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Clinical effectiveness of decongestive treatments on excess arm volume and patient-centered outcomes in women with early breast cancer-related arm lymphedema
Published in
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports, February 2018
DOI 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003185
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To identify the effect of decongestive lymphedema treatment on excess arm volume or patient-centered outcomes in women presenting within either 12 months or a mean nine months of developing arm lymphedema following breast cancer treatment. Lymphedema is a common consequence of breast cancer treatment requiring life-long treatment to reduce symptoms and prevent complications. Currently, evidence to inform the optimal decongestive lymphedema treatment package is lacking. The review included studies on women who received lymphedema treatment within either 12 months or a mean of nine months of developing unilateral breast cancer-related arm lymphedema. The intervention was any decongestive lymphedema treatment delivered with the purpose of reducing arm lymphedema, compared to another form of lymphedema treatment (whether self or practitioner-administered), placebo or no treatment. The clinical outcome was excess arm volume; patient-centered outcomes were health-related quality of life, arm heaviness, arm function, patient-perceived benefit and satisfaction with treatment. Experimental study designs were eligible, including randomized and non-randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, prospective and retrospective before and after studies were considered. A three-step search strategy was utilized to find published and unpublished studies. The search identified studies published from the inception of each database to July 6, 2016. Reference lists were scanned to identify further eligible studies. Studies were critically appraised using appropriate standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Details describing each study and treatment results regarding outcomes of interest were extracted from papers included in the review using appropriate standardized data extraction tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Due to heterogeneity in included studies, results for similar outcome measures were not pooled in statistical meta-analysis. A narrative and tabular format was used to synthesize results from identified and included studies. Seven studies reporting results for outcomes of interest were critically appraised and included in the review: five randomized controlled trials and two descriptive (uncontrolled) studies. Reported outcomes included excess arm volume (five studies), health-related quality of life (three studies), arm heaviness (one study), arm function (two studies) and patient-perceived benefit (two studies). There was some evidence that decongestive treatments were effective for women presenting within either 12 months or a mean of nine months of developing breast cancer-related arm lymphedema, but the wide range of data prevented comparison of treatment findings which limited our ability to answer the review questions. Weak evidence (grade B) for the impact of decongestive lymphedema treatment on women with early lymphedema (i.e. less than 12 months duration of BCRL symptoms) did not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the most effective treatment to be offered when these women first present for treatment. Findings provided no justification to support change to current practice.Future primary research needs to focus on the most effective treatment for women when they first present with lymphedema symptoms, e.g. treatment provided within 12 months of developing symptoms. Studies should be adequately powered and recruit women exclusively with less than 12 months duration of breast cancer-related lymphedema symptoms, provide longer follow-up to monitor treatment effect over time, with comparable treatment protocols, outcome measures and reporting methods.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Other 9 6%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 61 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Psychology 7 5%
Engineering 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 63 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 25 March 2026.
All research outputs
#2,490,966
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#40
of 701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,149
of 490,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports
#7
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 490,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 72% of its contemporaries.