Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Lyubov Lytvyn; Dena Zeraatkar; Allison B. Anbari; Pamela K. Ginex; Michael J. Zoratti; Kacper Niburski; Behnam Sadeghirad; Madelin Siedler; Lehana Thabane; Rebecca L. Morgan

doi:10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189

Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Lyubov Lytvyn
, Dena Zeraatkar
, Allison B. Anbari
, Pamela K. Ginex
, Michael J. Zoratti
, Kacper Niburski
, Behnam Sadeghirad
, Madelin Siedler
, Lehana Thabane
, Rebecca L. Morgan

Office of the Dean of Nursing

McMaster University
University of Missouri
McGill University
University of South Florida

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The comparative effectiveness of available management options for cancer-related secondary lymphedema is unknown. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL^®, Embase^®, and MEDLINE^® were searched for randomized trials comparing conservative treatment strategies. DATA EVALUATION: A network meta-analysis was conducted for lymphedema volume, along with pairwise meta-analyses for remaining outcomes. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: Overall, 36 studies with a total of 1,651 participants were included. Compared to standard care, conservative treatments did not significantly reduce lymphedema volume. There was low to very low certainty evidence of benefit for several treatments on secondary outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is insufficient evidence to suggest important differences between standard care and conservative treatment strategies for reducing lymphedema volume and improving lymphedema-related symptoms.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	E171-E189
Journal	Oncology nursing forum
Volume	47
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189
State	Published - 2020

Keywords

Cancer
Complete decongestive therapy
Secondary lymphedema
Systematic review

Access to Document

10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189

Cite this

@article{1ea953fa006941e5a82659d4005866c8,

title = "Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis",

abstract = "PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The comparative effectiveness of available management options for cancer-related secondary lymphedema is unknown. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL{\textregistered}, Embase{\textregistered}, and MEDLINE{\textregistered} were searched for randomized trials comparing conservative treatment strategies. DATA EVALUATION: A network meta-analysis was conducted for lymphedema volume, along with pairwise meta-analyses for remaining outcomes. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: Overall, 36 studies with a total of 1,651 participants were included. Compared to standard care, conservative treatments did not significantly reduce lymphedema volume. There was low to very low certainty evidence of benefit for several treatments on secondary outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is insufficient evidence to suggest important differences between standard care and conservative treatment strategies for reducing lymphedema volume and improving lymphedema-related symptoms.",

keywords = "Cancer, Complete decongestive therapy, Secondary lymphedema, Systematic review",

author = "Lyubov Lytvyn and Dena Zeraatkar and Anbari, \{Allison B.\} and Ginex, \{Pamela K.\} and Zoratti, \{Michael J.\} and Kacper Niburski and Behnam Sadeghirad and Madelin Siedler and Lehana Thabane and Morgan, \{Rebecca L.\}",

year = "2020",

doi = "10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189",

language = "English",

volume = "47",

pages = "E171--E189",

journal = "Oncology nursing forum",

issn = "0190-535X",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema

T2 - A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AU - Lytvyn, Lyubov

AU - Zeraatkar, Dena

AU - Anbari, Allison B.

AU - Ginex, Pamela K.

AU - Zoratti, Michael J.

AU - Niburski, Kacper

AU - Sadeghirad, Behnam

AU - Siedler, Madelin

AU - Thabane, Lehana

AU - Morgan, Rebecca L.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The comparative effectiveness of available management options for cancer-related secondary lymphedema is unknown. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL®, Embase®, and MEDLINE® were searched for randomized trials comparing conservative treatment strategies. DATA EVALUATION: A network meta-analysis was conducted for lymphedema volume, along with pairwise meta-analyses for remaining outcomes. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: Overall, 36 studies with a total of 1,651 participants were included. Compared to standard care, conservative treatments did not significantly reduce lymphedema volume. There was low to very low certainty evidence of benefit for several treatments on secondary outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is insufficient evidence to suggest important differences between standard care and conservative treatment strategies for reducing lymphedema volume and improving lymphedema-related symptoms.

AB - PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION: The comparative effectiveness of available management options for cancer-related secondary lymphedema is unknown. LITERATURE SEARCH: CINAHL®, Embase®, and MEDLINE® were searched for randomized trials comparing conservative treatment strategies. DATA EVALUATION: A network meta-analysis was conducted for lymphedema volume, along with pairwise meta-analyses for remaining outcomes. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. SYNTHESIS: Overall, 36 studies with a total of 1,651 participants were included. Compared to standard care, conservative treatments did not significantly reduce lymphedema volume. There was low to very low certainty evidence of benefit for several treatments on secondary outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: There is insufficient evidence to suggest important differences between standard care and conservative treatment strategies for reducing lymphedema volume and improving lymphedema-related symptoms.

KW - Cancer

KW - Complete decongestive therapy

KW - Secondary lymphedema

KW - Systematic review

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85089795034

U2 - 10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189

DO - 10.1188/20.ONF.E171-E189

M3 - Review article

C2 - 32830803

AN - SCOPUS:85089795034

SN - 0190-535X

VL - 47

SP - E171-E189

JO - Oncology nursing forum

JF - Oncology nursing forum

IS - 5

ER -

Conservative intervention strategies for adult cancer-related lymphedema: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this