The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comparison of Four Diagnostic Criteria for Lymphedema in a Post-Breast Cancer Population
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer survivors are at life-time risk of developing lymphedema (LE). The goal of this research was to describe LE incidence over time among women treated for breast cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Limb volume changes (LVC) were evaluated by two measurement methods, circumferences and perometry, among 118 participants followed preoperative to 12 months postdiagnosis. Four diagnostic criteria were used: 200 mL perometry LVC; 10% perometry LVC; 2 cm circumferential increase; and report of heaviness or swelling, either "now" or "in the past year." Using 200 mL, the estimated LE rate was 24% (95% CI = 17%-32%) at 6 months, and 42% (31%-53%) at 1 year. Using 10% LVC, the estimated LE rate was 8% (2%-13%) at 6 months, and 21% (12%-30%) at 1 year. Using 2 cm, the estimated LE rate was 46% (36%-56%) at 6 months, and 70% (60%-79%) at 1 year. Based on reported symptoms of heaviness or swelling, the estimated LE rate was 19% (11%-26%) at 6 months, and 40% (30-59%) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of a gold standard, we can only say that the different LE definitions are not equivalent, but cannot say which is "best". From this data, it appears that 10% LVC corresponds to a more conservative definition, whereas the 2 cm difference corresponds to a more liberal definition. These preliminary findings also document the importance of baseline (preoperative) anthropometric and symptom data and monitoring of changes over time. Further investigation of LE occurrence over an extended time period is warranted.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Lymphedema: current issues in research and management
Petrek, J. A., Pressman, P. I., & Smith, R. A. (2000) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.50.5.292 · Cited by 283
Cited by
Weight lifting in women with breast-cancer-related lymphedema
Schmitz, K. H., Ahmed, R. L., Troxel, A., Cheville, A., Smith, R., Lewis-Grant, L., Bryan, C. J., Williams-Smith, C. T., & Greene, Q. P. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0810118 · Cited by 578
Weight Lifting in Women with Breast-Cancer–Related Lymphedema
Rourke, L. R., Askew, R. L., & Cormier, J. N. (2010) · Breast Diseases: A Year Book Quarterly · doi:10.1016/s1043-321x(10)79464-9 · Cited by 409
Torres Lacomba, M., Yuste Sanchez, M. J., Zapico Goni, A., Prieto Merino, D., Mayoral del Moral, O., Cerezo Tellez, E., & Minayo Mogollon, E. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b5396 · Cited by 385
Lawenda, B. D., Mondry, T. E., & Johnstone, P. A. S. (2009) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20001 · Cited by 377
Hayes, S. C., Johansson, K., Stout, N. L., Prosnitz, R., Armer, J. M., Gabram, S., & Schmitz, K. H. (2012) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.27467 · Cited by 366
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Armer, J. M., & Stewart, B. R.
- Venue
- Lymphatic Research and Biology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-12
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 208-217
- ISSN
- 1539-6851 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8585
- OpenAlex
- W2002861424
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Comparison of Four Diagnostic Criteria for Lymphedema in a Post-Breast Cancer Population. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/lrb.2005.3.208
- The paper
- Armer, J. M., & Stewart, B. R. (2005). A Comparison of Four Diagnostic Criteria for Lymphedema in a Post-Breast Cancer Population. Lymphatic Research and Biology. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2005.3.208
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.