↓ Skip to main content

Low level laser therapy for the management of breast cancer‐related lymphedema: A randomized controlled feasibility study

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Low level laser therapy for the management of breast cancer‐related lymphedema: A randomized controlled feasibility study
Published in
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1002/lsm.22947
Pubmed ID
Authors

George David Baxter, Lizhou Liu, Steve Tumilty, Simone Petrich, Cathy Chapple, Juanita J. Anders, On Behalf of the Laser Lymphedema Trial Team

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a full scale randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of low level laser therapy (LLLT), also known as photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy, used in addition to conventional therapy, for managing breast cancer related lymphedema (BCRL). Patients with BCRL were recruited from the Southern District Health Board (New Zealand) via lymphedema therapists' referrals, and randomly allocated into either the laser group, which received BCRL conventional therapy (e.g., wearing compression garments, massage therapy, and/or exercise) plus a 6-week LLLT (PBM) intervention program (wavelength: 980/810 nm (80:20 ratio); output power: 500 mW beam spot size: 5 cm2 ; irradiance: 100 mW/cm2 ; treatment time per area: 1 minute dosage per area treated: 30J (6J/cm2 ); 10 points of treatment from axilla to wrist total LLLT (PBM) treatment time: 10 minutes total dosage delivered: 300 J), or the control group, which received BCRL conventional therapy alone. Feasibility was determined by recruitment and randomization rates, retention of participants and treatment protocol adherence, and was assessed during the recruiting and intervention periods. Data on participant satisfaction and adverse reactions of LLLT (PBM) were collected on completion of this study. Clinical outcomes (i.e., limb circumference, participant's perceived symptoms, psychological impacts, and activity disability) were assessed at baseline, and 6 and 12 weeks post-randomization. Over a 6-month recruitment window, 17 participants with BCRL were recruited in the study, and randomized into the two groups (recruitment rate of 81%, and randomization rate of 100%). Treatment adherence was high in the laser group (88.9% of participants completed all treatments). Retention rates were 88.9% for the laser group and 100% for the control group at both 6 and 12 weeks post-randomization. All participants who completed LLLT (PBM) treatment indicated that they were satisfied with the treatment. No serious adverse reactions were reported in this study. Clinical outcomes failed to show additional benefits of LLLT (PBM) intervention. This study demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct a fully powered RCT to definitively test the effectiveness of the additional use of LLLT (PBM) in the management of BCRL. For such a trial, 114 participants will be needed at baseline. Lasers Surg. Med. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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 4 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 148 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 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 6 4%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 77 52%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Materials Science 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 82 55%
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 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,208,670
of 27,547,273 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
#1,335
of 1,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,431
of 348,535 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
#13
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,547,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 348,535 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.