Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Circumferential Measurements to Calculate Lower Limb Volume in Persons with Lymphedema : What Segment Length Is to Be Recommended?

Jönsson, Charlotta LU ; Johansson, Karin LU ; Bjurberg, Maria LU and Brogårdh, Christina LU (2023) In Lymphatic Research and Biology 21(3). p.275-282
Abstract

Background: Circumferential measurements (CMs) every 4th cm are commonly used to assess lower limb volume (LLV), but fewer measurements would be less time-consuming. The aim of this study was therefore to establish the agreement between LLV measurements derived from CM every 4th cm (V4), 8th cm (V8), and 12th cm (V12), and to evaluate the intrarater test-retest reliability for each of the three measurement methods in persons with lower limb lymphedema (LLL). Methods and Results: Forty-two persons with unilateral or bilateral LLL were measured twice, 2 weeks apart. Volume measurements for the V4, V8, and V12 methods were derived using CM. The agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3.1) and Bland-Altman... (More)

Background: Circumferential measurements (CMs) every 4th cm are commonly used to assess lower limb volume (LLV), but fewer measurements would be less time-consuming. The aim of this study was therefore to establish the agreement between LLV measurements derived from CM every 4th cm (V4), 8th cm (V8), and 12th cm (V12), and to evaluate the intrarater test-retest reliability for each of the three measurement methods in persons with lower limb lymphedema (LLL). Methods and Results: Forty-two persons with unilateral or bilateral LLL were measured twice, 2 weeks apart. Volume measurements for the V4, V8, and V12 methods were derived using CM. The agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3.1) and Bland-Altman graphs including 95% limits of agreement (LOA). The reliability was evaluated using ICC2.1 and standard error of measurement (SEM%) and smallest real difference (SRD%). The agreement was high for the V4 and V8 methods (ICC 0.999), and for the V4 and V12 methods (ICC 0.998). The graphs revealed slightly higher agreement between the V4 and V8 than between the V4 and V12 methods visualized by the 95% LOA (-117 to 62 and -236 to 132 mL, respectively). For all three measurement methods, the test-retest reliability was high (ICC 0.993-0.995) and the measurement error low (SEM%: 1.2%-1.4% and SRD%: 3.4%-3.8%). Conclusions: The higher agreement between the V4 and V8 methods than between V4 and V12, and the high test-retest reliability in LLV measurements support the V8 method to replace the V4 method in persons with LLL.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Lower Extremity, Lymphedema/diagnosis
in
Lymphatic Research and Biology
volume
21
issue
3
pages
275 - 282
publisher
Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
external identifiers
  • scopus:85160638964
  • pmid:36449394
ISSN
1539-6851
DOI
10.1089/lrb.2022.0032
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
7ee6baee-6737-4570-8c72-96eb3e3b94b7
date added to LUP
2023-11-07 12:06:23
date last changed
2024-04-19 20:13:57
@article{7ee6baee-6737-4570-8c72-96eb3e3b94b7,
  abstract     = {{<p>Background: Circumferential measurements (CMs) every 4th cm are commonly used to assess lower limb volume (LLV), but fewer measurements would be less time-consuming. The aim of this study was therefore to establish the agreement between LLV measurements derived from CM every 4th cm (V4), 8th cm (V8), and 12th cm (V12), and to evaluate the intrarater test-retest reliability for each of the three measurement methods in persons with lower limb lymphedema (LLL). Methods and Results: Forty-two persons with unilateral or bilateral LLL were measured twice, 2 weeks apart. Volume measurements for the V4, V8, and V12 methods were derived using CM. The agreement was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC3.1) and Bland-Altman graphs including 95% limits of agreement (LOA). The reliability was evaluated using ICC2.1 and standard error of measurement (SEM%) and smallest real difference (SRD%). The agreement was high for the V4 and V8 methods (ICC 0.999), and for the V4 and V12 methods (ICC 0.998). The graphs revealed slightly higher agreement between the V4 and V8 than between the V4 and V12 methods visualized by the 95% LOA (-117 to 62 and -236 to 132 mL, respectively). For all three measurement methods, the test-retest reliability was high (ICC 0.993-0.995) and the measurement error low (SEM%: 1.2%-1.4% and SRD%: 3.4%-3.8%). Conclusions: The higher agreement between the V4 and V8 methods than between V4 and V12, and the high test-retest reliability in LLV measurements support the V8 method to replace the V4 method in persons with LLL.</p>}},
  author       = {{Jönsson, Charlotta and Johansson, Karin and Bjurberg, Maria and Brogårdh, Christina}},
  issn         = {{1539-6851}},
  keywords     = {{Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Lower Extremity; Lymphedema/diagnosis}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{3}},
  pages        = {{275--282}},
  publisher    = {{Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.}},
  series       = {{Lymphatic Research and Biology}},
  title        = {{Circumferential Measurements to Calculate Lower Limb Volume in Persons with Lymphedema : What Segment Length Is to Be Recommended?}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2022.0032}},
  doi          = {{10.1089/lrb.2022.0032}},
  volume       = {{21}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}