Quality of Life and Costs Within Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy in Patients with Leg Lymphedema: A Multicountry, Open-Label, Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known of the impact in terms of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness with decongestive therapy. Objectives: To examine changes in limb volume, quality of life (QoL), and treatment cost of methods of decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT). Methods: Patients with chronic edema/lymphedema of the leg were invited to participate in a study of DLT in four countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Canada). In each country two sites were selected. One site used their standard method of DLT in their service, including compression with multilayer bandaging with inelastic material. The other site used a system that included 3M™ Coban 2™ as the bandage treatment alongside other standard components of DLT. Patients were followed for either 2 or 4 weeks depending on the local protocols. At entry, at 2 weeks, and at 4 weeks, patients were assessed by using a health index (EQ-5D), a disease-specific HRQoL tool (LYMQOL) and resource usage was recorded over the treatment period. Results: Of the 165 patients with cost data, 90 were treated with Coban 2 and 75 with standard care compression bandaging. There was good evidence of an improvement in EQ-5D of 0.077 ( p < 0.001) in all patients. LYMQOL showed significant improvements ( p < 0.001) with lower scores. There were no major differences between the two arms of the study with respect to HRQoL. The number of treatment episodes was higher in those treated with standard care (8.15 vs. 6.37), but the overall treatment cost was higher with Coban 2 (£890.7) compared with standard care (£723.0). Conclusion: QoL improved in the standard care and Coban 2 group bandages, and there was no demonstrable difference between the care systems. Further work is required to examine the role of the individual parts of DLT that provide the greatest benefit to patients and the health systems that support them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".