Judy Mastick1, Betty J Smoot2, Steven M Paul1, Kord M Kober1, Deborah Hamolsky1, Lori K Madden3, Yvette P Conley4, Niharika Dixit2, Marilyn J Hammer5, Mei R Fu6, Christine Miaskowski1. 1. Department of Physiological Nursing, School of Nursing, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 3. UC Davis Health, Sacramento, California, USA. 4. Department of Health Promotion and Development, School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. School of Nursing, Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
Background: While supine bioimpedance devices are used to evaluate for lymphedema (LE), stand-on devices are gaining popularity. Because research on differences in bioimpedance values between the two devices is limited, this study's purposes were to: (1) determine the average upper limb impedance values and inter-limb ratios for women who self-reported having (n = 34) or not having (n = 61) a history of LE, using a single-frequency supine device and a multifrequency stand-on device; (2) compare the level of agreement in inter-limb impedance ratios between the two devices; evaluate the percent agreement between the two devices in classifying cases of LE using established supine thresholds; and evaluate the percent agreement in classifying cases of LE between the supine device using previously established supine thresholds and the stand-on device using two published standing thresholds. Methods and Results: Bioimpedance measures were done using the two devices. For the entire sample, absolute impedance values for both the affected and unaffected limbs were significantly higher for the stand-on device in women with and without LE. Impedance values for the two methods were highly correlated. Bland-Altman analysis determined that for the entire range of impedance ratios the values for the two devices could not be used interchangeably. Conclusions: Findings suggest that the stand-on device can be a useful and valid tool to assess for LE. However, because agreement is not perfect, values obtained from the two devices should not be used interchangeably to evaluate for changes in impedance ratios, particularly for ratios of >1.20.
Background: While supine bioimpedance devices are used to evaluate for lymphedema (LE), stand-on devices are gaining popularity. Because research on differences in bioimpedance values between the two devices is limited, this study's purposes were to: (1) determine the average upper limb impedance values and inter-limb ratios for women who self-reported having (n = 34) or not having (n = 61) a history of LE, using a single-frequency supine device and a multifrequency stand-on device; (2) compare the level of agreement in inter-limb impedance ratios between the two devices; evaluate the percent agreement between the two devices in classifying cases of LE using established supine thresholds; and evaluate the percent agreement in classifying cases of LE between the supine device using previously established supine thresholds and the stand-on device using two published standing thresholds. Methods and Results: Bioimpedance measures were done using the two devices. For the entire sample, absolute impedance values for both the affected and unaffected limbs were significantly higher for the stand-on device in women with and without LE. Impedance values for the two methods were highly correlated. Bland-Altman analysis determined that for the entire range of impedance ratios the values for the two devices could not be used interchangeably. Conclusions: Findings suggest that the stand-on device can be a useful and valid tool to assess for LE. However, because agreement is not perfect, values obtained from the two devices should not be used interchangeably to evaluate for changes in impedance ratios, particularly for ratios of >1.20.
Authors: Ana Paula Ferro; Vânia Tie Koga Ferreira; Monique Silva Rezende; Thamires Rodrigues de Souza; Ana Maria de Almeida; Rinaldo Roberto de Jesus Guirro; Elaine Caldeira de Oliveira Guirro Journal: Lymphat Res Biol Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 2.589
Authors: Betty Smoot; Bruce A Cooper; Yvette Conley; Kord Kober; Jon D Levine; Judy Mastick; Kimberly Topp; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Kunal M Kirloskar; Areeg A Abu El Hawa; Kevin G Kim; Paige K Dekker; Guy Shaposhnik; Kenneth L Fan Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-04-18