Factors Predicting Limb Volume Reduction Using Compression Bandaging Within Decongestive Lymphatic Therapy in Lymphedema: A Multicountry Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To identify predictive factors associated with limb volume reduction using different decongestive lymphatic therapy (DLT) systems in patients with lymphoedema, over a period of up to 28 days. Methods: A multicountry (Canada, France, Germany, the United Kingdom) prospective cohort study using (DLT): skin care, exercise, compression bandaging, and manual lymphatic drainage for up to 4 weeks. Reduction in limb volume comparing DLT with (1) standard multilayer bandaging with inelastic material, and with (2) multilayer bandaging with Coban2, together with the identification of factors associated with limb volume changes. Results: Out of 264 patients with upper or lower limb lymphedema, 133 used Coban2 and 131 used standard care. Following DLT, mean limb volume reduction was 941 mL using Coban2 compared with 814 mL using standard care. A difference of 127 mL was found (95% confidence interval −275 to 529 mL, p = 0.53). Of the 176 patients with leg swelling, 166 (94.3%) had a limb volume measurement after 28 days and were included in the risk factor analysis. Of these, 132 (79.5%) were female, with overall mean age of 60.1 years (standard deviation = 14.7), with secondary lymphedema in 102/163 (62.6%). Duration of lymphedema was >10 years in 75/161 (46.6%) and 99/166 (59.7%) were International Society of Lymphology late-stage II/III, indicating longstanding and/or a high frequency of patients with advanced stages of lymphedema. Ninety-one (54.8%) received Coban2 and 75 (45.2%) had standard care. Multivariable factors for a greater leg volume reduction were large initial leg volume ( p < 0.001), DLT treatment duration of 4 weeks compared with 2 weeks ( p = 0.01), and peripheral arterial disease ( p = 0.015). Conclusion: Limb volume changes were found to be similar between groups. Lack of standardization of DLT makes interpretation of effectiveness problematic. There is an urgent need for randomized-controlled trials. Despite this, severe lymphedema with a large limb volume responded well to DLT in this study.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".