Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 204

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Volume measurement in lymphoedema treatment: examination of formulae

SITZIA, JOHN·1995·European Journal of Cancer Care

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine a variety of mathematical volume formulae and their respective validity in establishing limb volume in monitoring and evaluation of treatment for lymphoedema. Using a random sample of treatment records from the Day Ward, Worthing Hospital, it is shown that the formula most commonly used at present, that for a cylinder, produces imprecise volume data. A simplified formula derived from the formula for a frustum is tested, and is found to produce more accurate data. The paper proposes that the frustum formula is more appropriate in establishing limb volume, and should be adopted by practitioners.

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 · 10.1111/j.1365-2354.1995.tb00047.x

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.

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

Cited by

See all 204

Metadata

Authors
SITZIA, J.
Venue
European Journal of Cancer Care
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1995-03
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
11-16
ISSN
  • 0961-5423 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2354
OpenAlex
W2149924726
Cited by
204
References
0
FWCI
0.59
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: Volume measurement in lymphoedema treatment: examination of formulae. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2354.1995.tb00047.x
The paper
SITZIA, J. (1995). Volume measurement in lymphoedema treatment: examination of formulae. European Journal of Cancer Care. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.1995.tb00047.x

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.