Dataset Information

Systematic review: conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema.

ABSTRACT: Several conservative (i.e., nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical) treatments exist for secondary lymphedema. The optimal treatment is unknown. We examined the effectiveness of conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema, as well as harms related to these treatments.We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials®, AMED, and CINAHL from 1990 to January 19, 2010. We obtained English- and non-English-language randomized controlled trials or observational studies (with comparison groups) that reported primary effectiveness data on conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema. For English-language studies, we extracted data in tabular form and summarized the tables descriptively. For non-English-language studies, we summarized the results descriptively and discussed similarities with the English-language studies.Thirty-six English-language and eight non-English-language studies were included in the review. Most of these studies involved upper-limb lymphedema secondary to breast cancer. Despite lymphedema's chronicity, lengths of follow-up in most studies were under 6 months. Many trial reports contained inadequate descriptions of randomization, blinding, and methods to assess harms. Most observational studies did not control for confounding. Many studies showed that active treatments reduced the size of lymphatic limbs, although extensive between-study heterogeneity in areas such as treatment comparisons and protocols, and outcome measures, prevented us from assessing whether any one treatment was superior. This heterogeneity also precluded us from statistically pooling results. Harms were rare (< 1% incidence) and mostly minor (e.g., headache, arm pain).The literature contains no evidence to suggest the most effective treatment for secondary lymphedema. Harms are few and unlikely to cause major clinical problems.

SUBMITTER: Oremus M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3320521 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review: conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema.

Oremus Mark M Dayes Ian I Walker Kathryn K Raina Parminder P

BMC cancer 20120104

<h4>Background</h4>Several conservative (i.e., nonpharmacologic, nonsurgical) treatments exist for secondary lymphedema. The optimal treatment is unknown. We examined the effectiveness of conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema, as well as harms related to these treatments.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials®, AMED, and CINAHL from 1990 to January 19, 2010. We obtained English- and non-English-language randomized controlled trial ...[more]

PMID: 22216837

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Lymphedema is a debilitating and disfiguring sequela of an overwhelmed lymphatic system. The most common causes of secondary lymphedema are lymphatic filariasis (LF), a vector-borne, parasitic disease endemic in 73 tropical countries, and treatment for cancer in developed countries. Lymphedema is incurable and requires life-long care so identification of effective lymphedema management is imperative to improve quality of life, reduce the burden on family resources and benefit the local community. This review was conducted to evaluate the evidence for effective lymphedema self-care strategies that might be applicable to management of all types of secondary lymphedema. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL and Scopus databases in March 2015. Included studies reported before and after measures of lymphedema status or frequency of acute infections. The methodological quality was assessed using the appropriate Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. Descriptive synthesis and meta-analysis were used to evaluate effectiveness of the outcomes reported. Twenty-eight papers were included; two RCTs were found to have strong methodology, and overall 57% of studies were rated as methodologically weak. Evidence from filariasis-related lymphedema (FR-LE) studies indicated that hygiene-centred self-care reduced the frequency and duration of acute episodes by 54%, and in cancer-related lymphedema (CR-LE) home-based exercise including deep breathing delivered significant volume reductions over standard self-care alone. Intensity of training in self-care practices and frequency of monitoring improved outcomes. Cultural and economic factors and access to health care services influenced the type of intervention delivered and how outcomes were measured. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:There is evidence to support the adoption of remedial exercises in the management of FR-LE and for a greater emphasis on self-treatment practices for people with CR-LE. Empowerment of people with lymphedema to care for themselves with access to supportive professional assistance has the capacity to optimise self-management practices and improve outcomes from limited health resources.

Project description:Macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion (RVO) can cause vision loss due to blockage of the central retinal vein (CRVO) or a branch retinal vein (BRVO). This systematic review assessed the efficacies of widely used treatments for macular oedema secondary to RVO and the feasibility of conducting indirect comparisons between these therapies.A systematic review was undertaken in November 2010, including a literature search for trials in medical databases and relevant websites. Abstracts, conference presentations and unpublished studies were considered. Studies were data-extracted and quality assessed by two independent researchers. Outcome measures included the mean change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline in the study eye and/or number of patients gaining at least 10 letters from baseline to 6 months or the nearest equivalent time point.Fourteen unique randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. Ranibizumab 0.5 mg produced greater improvements in BCVA at 6 months than sham in BRVO (mean difference 11.0 letters, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.83, 14.17) and CRVO (mean difference 14.10 letters, 95% CI 10.51, 17.69) in two double-blind sham-controlled RCTs. Pooled data from two double-blind, sham-controlled RCTs showed that improvements in BCVA were also significantly better for dexamethasone intravitreal (IVT) implant 0.7 mg compared with sham in patients with BRVO or CRVO (mean difference 2.5 letters, 95% CI 0.7, 4.3); the difference was significant for BRVO alone, but not CRVO alone. A significantly greater proportion of patients with BRVO gained ?15 letters with laser therapy vs. no treatment at 36 months in a large prospective RCT (odds ratio 3.16, 95% CI 1.25, 8.00), whereas no difference was observed at 9 months in a smaller study. Three studies reported no benefit for laser therapy in CRVO. No indirect comparisons with ranibizumab were feasible due to differences in study design and baseline characteristics.Data from RCTs for ranibizumab and dexamethasone IVT demonstrate that both new agents constitute significant improvements over the previously widely accepted standard of care (laser therapy) for the treatment of BRVO and CRVO. However, head-to-head studies are needed to assess the relative efficacies of licensed therapies for RVO.

Dataset Information

Systematic review: conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema.

Publications

Systematic review: conservative treatments for secondary lymphedema.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets