2020
DOI: 10.3390/healthcare8030285
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Determination of the Minimum Detectable Change in the Total and Segmental Volumes of the Upper Limb, Evaluated by Perimeter Measurements

Abstract: Among female breast cancer survivors, there is a high prevalence of lymphedema subsequent to axillary lymph node dissection and axillary radiation therapy. There are many methodologies available for the screening, diagnosis and follow-up of breast cancer survivors with or without lymphedema, the most common of which is the measurement of patients’ arm circumference. The purpose of this study was to determine the intra-rater minimal detectable change (MDC) in the volume of the upper limb, both segmentally and g… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This finding provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that NPMT, which mobilizes skin and subcutaneous tissue to support lymphatic circulation, results in greater improvement in measures of LE in women with chronic LE, whereas MLD may be less effective. In addition, the reduction in the interlimb volume difference (109.2 mL) in the NPMT group suggests a positive treatment effect and exceeds the minimal detectable change of 42.9 mL 45 for upper limb volume derived from circumference measures. The minimal detectable change is defined as the statistical estimate of the smallest amount of change that can be detected by a measure that reflects true change beyond measurement error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…This finding provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that NPMT, which mobilizes skin and subcutaneous tissue to support lymphatic circulation, results in greater improvement in measures of LE in women with chronic LE, whereas MLD may be less effective. In addition, the reduction in the interlimb volume difference (109.2 mL) in the NPMT group suggests a positive treatment effect and exceeds the minimal detectable change of 42.9 mL 45 for upper limb volume derived from circumference measures. The minimal detectable change is defined as the statistical estimate of the smallest amount of change that can be detected by a measure that reflects true change beyond measurement error.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 74%
“…A controlled, multicentric, prospective, stratification-randomised clinical trial was designed in two gradients, single-blind and with two parallel arms: a control group (CG) in which the rehabilitation guidelines recommended in the Integrated Breast Cancer Care Process of the Ministry of Health and Families of the Junta de Andalucía [ 18 ] were followed (preventive measures, skin care and exercise, prescription of compression garments and multilayer bandages and manual lymphatic drainage, using compression garments, in both stages, in the maintenance phase, after the intensive treatment) and an experimental group (EG) that received the TAPA treatment, which does not exert compression on the affected upper-limb and uses activity as a treatment method ( Figure 1 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature estimates a minimum detectable volume value of lymphedema at a difference of 2.39% (42.9 mL) from baseline [ 18 ]. Considering means and standard deviations from other studies [ 20 ] for an alpha error of 0.05 and a statistical power of 80%, a sample size of 29 subjects per group is calculated with EPIDAT 4.2.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, to determine whether an improvement is real, it is necessary to know the minimum change values that can be detected by the instrument used. If the difference between the evaluations is greater than the MDC value of the employed measurement method, one can be sure, with a high degree of certainty, that the variation observed is not due to a limitation or random error of the method used for measurement [33]. However, there is a lack of data regarding the repeatability of these measurements (i.e., dynamic maximal strength and muscle power) in adolescents and children.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%