ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2026
Complete decongestive therapy for breast cancer-related lymphedema: An evidence summary.
Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on complete decongestive therapy (CDT) for people with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). Methods: Using an evidence-based health care pyramid approach, we searched bibliographic databases, guideline and professional organization websites, and clinical decision support sources from inception to October 1, 2025. Eligibility was defined using the PIPOST framework. Methodological quality was independently appraised by three reviewers for guidelines and by two reviewers for other evidence types using evidence-type-specific appraisal tools. Two reviewers extracted and synthesized the evidence. Evidence levels were assigned using the JBI 2014 system, and recommendation grades were determined through expert-panel assessment of feasibility, appropriateness, meaningfulness, and effectiveness. Results: Thirty-one evidence sources were included, comprising clinical decision support sources, guidelines, evidence summaries, systematic reviews, and expert consensus documents. Thirty-seven evidence statements were synthesized across three domains: implementation principles, the intensive treatment phase, and the maintenance treatment phase. Nineteen statements (51.4%) were supported by Level 1 evidence, and 25 (67.6%) received Grade A recommendations. Conclusions: This evidence summary provides an evidence-informed framework for CDT across the intensive and maintenance phases, with explicit attention to transition planning and self-management. The evidence is stronger for several core interventions than for implementation strategies and long-term self-management. Further high-quality primary and implementation research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.