Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 358

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychosocial impact of lymphedema: a systematic review of literature from 2004 to 2011

Open access
Fu, Mei R., Ridner, Sheila H., Hu, Sophia H., Stewart, Bob R., Cormier, Janice N., Armer, Jane M.·2013·Psycho-Oncology
DOI 10.1002/pon.3201
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the level of evidence of contemporary peer‐reviewed literature published from 2004 to 2011 on the psychosocial impact of lymphedema. Methods: Eleven electronic databases were searched and 1311 articles retrieved; 23 met inclusion criteria. Twelve articles utilized qualitative methodology and 11 used quantitative methodology. An established quality assessment tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: The overall quality of the 23 included studies was adequate. A critical limitation of current literature is the lack of conceptual or operational definitions for the concept of psychosocial impact. Quantitative studies showed statistically significant poorer social well‐being in persons with lymphedema, including perceptions related to body image, appearance, sexuality, and social barriers. No statistically significant differences were found between persons with and without lymphedema in the domains of emotional well‐being (happy or sad) and psychological distress (depression and anxiety). All 12 of the qualitative studies consistently described negative psychological impact (negative self‐identity, emotional disturbance, and psychological distress) and negative social impact (marginalization, financial burden, perceived diminished sexuality, social isolation, perceived social abandonment, public insensitivity, and non‐supportive work environment). Factors associated with psychosocial impact were also identified. Conclusions: Lymphedema has a negative psychosocial impact on affected individuals. The current review sheds light on the conceptualization and operationalization of the definitions of psychosocial impact with respect to lymphedema. Development of a lymphedema‐specific instrument is needed to better characterize the impact of lymphedema and to examine the factors contributing to these outcomes in cancer and non‐cancer‐related populations. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.3201

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 358

Metadata

Authors
Fu, M. R., Ridner, S. H., Hu, S. H., Stewart, B. R., Cormier, J. N., & Armer, J. M.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-10-09
Volume
22
Issue
7
Pages
1466-1484
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
DOI
10.1002/pon.3201
OpenAlex
W1565361748
Cited by
358
References
30
FWCI
1.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.