Advertisement

Lymphedema pp 111-118 | Cite as

Review of National and International Consensuses on Chronic Lymphedema

  • Michael J. Bernas
Chapter

Abstract

Consensus documents are produced in an effort to help move a field forward and/or to offer to patients the best evidence/expert-based treatment approaches. The results can be positive, by promoting clearly beneficial options in the face of multiple choices, but they can also be harmful by limiting therapeutic options and stifling research for future advances. Some physicians, policy-makers, and patients desire documents with clear unalterable protocols, whereas an equal cohort exists that believe that these documents confine and distort the practice of medicine. An inherent problem that will not easily be resolved is that these types of guidelines are based on studies of populations of patients and generate protocols appropriate for a range of patients. However, each patient brings his or her own individual constellation of issues and findings, rendering it impossible for a consensus to address each item. Therefore, sound clinical judgment and modification will always be required.

Keywords

Consensus Document Compression Bandage Guideline Document Manual Lymph Drainage Sound Clinical Judgment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224-233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Qaseem A, Snow V, Owens DK, Shekelle P. The development of clinical practice guidelines and guidance statements of the American College of Physicians: summary of methods. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:194-199.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC. Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA. 2009;301:831-841.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hampton JR. Evidence-based medicine, opinion-based medicine, and real-world medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2002;45:549-568.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Society of Lymphology. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema: 2009 consensus document. Lymphology. 2009;42(2):51-60.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Society of Lymphology Executive Committee. The diagnosis and treatment of peripheral lymphedema. Lymphology. 1995;28:113-117.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    International Lymphoedema Framework Project. Best Practice for the Management of Lymphoedema: International Consensus. London: Medical Education Partnership Ltd; 2006.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campisi C, Michelini S, Boccardo F. Guidelines of the societá italiana di linfangiologia. Lymphology. 2004;37:165-184.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ciucci JL. 1st Latin American consensus on the management of lymphedema. Phlebolymphology. 2004;44:258-264.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council Report. A review of current practices and future directions in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of lymphoedema in Australia 2006. Available at: http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/Review+of+lymphoedema+in+Australia accessed 05/11/2011.
  11. 11.
    Rockson SG, Miller LT, Senie R, et al. American Cancer Society lymphedema workshop. Workgroup III: diagnosis and management of lymphedema. Cancer. 1998;83(12):2882-2885.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    National Lymphedema Network Medical Advisory Committee. Position statement of the treatment of lymphedema [document on the Internet]. National Lymphedema Network; 2011 [updated 2011, February]. Available at: http://www.lymphnet.org/pdfDocs/nlntreatment.pdf accessed 05/11/2011.
  13. 13.
    Isaacs D, Fitzgerald D. Seven alternatives to evidence based medicine. BMJ. 1999;319:1618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Groopman J, Hartzband P. Sorting fact from fiction on health care. The Wall Street Journal. August 31, 2009. Available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574378542143891778.html accessed 05/11/2011.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Bernas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Arizona College of MedicineTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations