A new device to measure upper limb circumferences: Validity and reliability

International Angiology

Volumn 29, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 401-407

  Devoogdt, N ^a,b,c   Lemkens, H ^a,b   Geraerts, I ^a,b   Van Nuland, I ^a,b   Flour, M ^a   Coremans, T ^c   Christiaens, M R ^a   Van Kampen, M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^c Hogeschool Antwerpen   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Arm circumference; Measurements; Validation study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANTHROPOMETRY; ARM CIRCUMFERENCE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER PATIENT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; INTRARATER RELIABILITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OLECRANON; RELIABILITY; SELF EXAMINATION; WATER IMMERSION;

ANTHROPOMETRY; BELGIUM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; HUMANS; LYMPHEDEMA; OBSERVER VARIATION; ORGAN SIZE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UPPER EXTREMITY;

EID: 77956186051     PISSN: 03929590     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Consensus document of the International Society of Lymphology. Lymphology 2003;36:84-91.
2. Karges JR, Mark BE, Stikeleather SJ, Worrell TW. Concurrent validity of upper-extremity volume estimates: comparison of calculated volume derived from girth measurements and water displacement volume. Phys Ther 2003;83:134-45.
3. Megens AM, Harris SR, Kim-Sing C, McKenzie DC. Measurement of upper extremity volume in women after axillary dissection for breast cancer. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:1639-44. (Pubitemid 33126666)
4. Gerber LH. A review of measures of lymphedema. Cancer 1998;83(12 Suppl American):2803-4.
5. Stanton AW, Badger C, Sitzia J. Non-invasive assessment of the lymphedematous limb. Lymphology 2000;33:122-35.
6. Caban ME. Trends in the evaluation of lymphedema. Lymphology 2002;35:28-38.
7. Taylor R, Jayasinghe UW, Koelmeyer L, Ung O, Boyages J. Reliability and validity of arm volume measurements for assessment of lymphedema. Phys Ther 2006;86:205-14. (Pubitemid 43190716)
8. Lexell JE, Downham DY. How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2005;84:719-23.
9. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307-10.
10. Chen YW, Tsai HJ, Hung HC, Tsauo JY. Reliability study of measurements for lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008;87:33-8.
11. Sander AP, Hajer NM, Hemenway K, Miller AC. Upper-extremity volume measurements in women with lymphedema: a comparison of measurements obtained via water displacement with geometrically determined volume. Phys Ther 2002;82:1201-12.
12. Deltombe T, Jamart J, Recloux S, Legrand C, Vandenbroeck N, Theys S et al. Reliability and limits of agreement of circumferential, water displacement, and optoelectronic volumetry in the measurement of upper limb lymphedema. Lymphology 2007;40:26-34.