Assessment Tools to Quantify the Physical Aspects of Lipedema: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Lymphatic research and biology Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1089/lrb.2024.0102
Helen E Eason, Sharon L Kilbreath, Nicola Fearn, Elizabeth S Dylke
{"title":"Assessment Tools to Quantify the Physical Aspects of Lipedema: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Helen E Eason, Sharon L Kilbreath, Nicola Fearn, Elizabeth S Dylke","doi":"10.1089/lrb.2024.0102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lipedema diagnosis is heavily reliant on patient history. Various objective assessments have been suggested; however, a standardized measurement process is lacking. A systematic review was undertaken to identify which imaging and measurement tools are used in lipedema quantification and to review their protocols. Six databases were searched with two reviewers screening citations for inclusion. Full peer-reviewed publications that included defined lipedema diagnosis criteria, no male cases within comparative cohorts, and used an imaging or measurement tool to quantify lipedema were included. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria using 13 different tools to quantify individual physical lipedema characteristics to either enable differential diagnosis, and/or quantify treatment effect: tape measure, perometry, durometry, tonometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, tissue di-electric constant, ultrasound, Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), noncontrast MRI lymphangiography, Indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, and dynamic lymphangiography. Eight imaging and five measurement tools assessed lymphatic transport disturbances (<i>n</i> = 8), limb size/volume (<i>n</i> = 4), adipose tissue thickness/mass/volume (<i>n</i> = 3), and tissue fluid presence (<i>n</i> = 2). Multiple tools were only used in studies completed in 2020 or later. A lack of consistency exists in tool protocols, measurement locations, and outcome analysis. Limited reporting of clinimetrics with data derived from small cohorts and heterogenous populations impacted the ability to recommend tools for clinical practice and research. Various tools were used for objective lipedema assessment; however, consistency in approach was lacking. Further investigations are required to establish the validity and reliability of measurement and imaging tools, protocols, measurement points, and outcome reporting/interpretation to quantify the physical attributes of lipedema.</p>","PeriodicalId":18168,"journal":{"name":"Lymphatic research and biology","volume":" ","pages":"139-159"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lymphatic research and biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2024.0102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lipedema diagnosis is heavily reliant on patient history. Various objective assessments have been suggested; however, a standardized measurement process is lacking. A systematic review was undertaken to identify which imaging and measurement tools are used in lipedema quantification and to review their protocols. Six databases were searched with two reviewers screening citations for inclusion. Full peer-reviewed publications that included defined lipedema diagnosis criteria, no male cases within comparative cohorts, and used an imaging or measurement tool to quantify lipedema were included. Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria using 13 different tools to quantify individual physical lipedema characteristics to either enable differential diagnosis, and/or quantify treatment effect: tape measure, perometry, durometry, tonometry, bioimpedance spectroscopy, tissue di-electric constant, ultrasound, Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), noncontrast MRI lymphangiography, Indocyanine green lymphography, lymphoscintigraphy, and dynamic lymphangiography. Eight imaging and five measurement tools assessed lymphatic transport disturbances (n = 8), limb size/volume (n = 4), adipose tissue thickness/mass/volume (n = 3), and tissue fluid presence (n = 2). Multiple tools were only used in studies completed in 2020 or later. A lack of consistency exists in tool protocols, measurement locations, and outcome analysis. Limited reporting of clinimetrics with data derived from small cohorts and heterogenous populations impacted the ability to recommend tools for clinical practice and research. Various tools were used for objective lipedema assessment; however, consistency in approach was lacking. Further investigations are required to establish the validity and reliability of measurement and imaging tools, protocols, measurement points, and outcome reporting/interpretation to quantify the physical attributes of lipedema.

评估工具量化的物理方面的脂肪水肿:一个系统的审查。
脂肪水肿的诊断在很大程度上依赖于患者的病史。提出了各种客观评价;然而,缺乏标准化的测量过程。进行了系统的审查,以确定哪些成像和测量工具用于脂水肿定量和审查他们的协议。检索了6个数据库,并由2位审稿人筛选引文纳入。完整的同行评审出版物包括明确的脂肪水肿诊断标准,在比较队列中没有男性病例,并使用成像或测量工具来量化脂肪水肿。20项研究符合纳入标准,使用13种不同的工具来量化个体物理脂水肿特征,以实现鉴别诊断和/或量化治疗效果:皮带尺、血压计、硬度计、血压计、生物阻抗谱、组织双电常数、超声、双能x线吸收仪、磁共振成像(MRI)、非对比MRI淋巴管造影、吲吲吲绿淋巴管造影、淋巴显像和动态淋巴管造影。8种成像和5种测量工具评估了淋巴运输障碍(n = 8)、肢体大小/体积(n = 4)、脂肪组织厚度/质量/体积(n = 3)和组织液存在(n = 2)。多种工具仅用于2020年或以后完成的研究。缺乏一致性存在于工具协议、测量位置和结果分析中。来自小队列和异质人群的临床计量学数据的有限报告影响了推荐临床实践和研究工具的能力。各种工具用于客观的脂水肿评估;然而,在方法上缺乏一致性。需要进一步的调查来确定测量和成像工具、方案、测量点和结果报告/解释的有效性和可靠性,以量化脂水肿的物理属性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lymphatic research and biology
Lymphatic research and biology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Lymphatic Research and Biology delivers the most current peer-reviewed advances and developments in lymphatic biology and pathology from the world’s leading biomedical investigators. The Journal provides original research from a broad range of investigative disciplines, including genetics, biochemistry and biophysics, cellular and molecular biology, physiology and pharmacology, anatomy, developmental biology, and pathology. Lymphatic Research and Biology coverage includes: -Vasculogenesis and angiogenesis -Genetics of lymphatic disorders -Human lymphatic disease, including lymphatic insufficiency and associated vascular anomalies -Physiology of intestinal fluid and protein balance -Immunosurveillance and immune cell trafficking -Tumor biology and metastasis -Pharmacology -Lymphatic imaging -Endothelial and smooth muscle cell biology -Inflammation, infection, and autoimmune disease
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信