Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement
Clinical Rehabilitation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sitzia, J.
Right arrow Articles by Badger, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sitzia, J.
Right arrow Articles by Badger, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Reviews

A review of outcome indicators in the treatment of chronic limb oedema

J. Sitzia

Worthing Nursing Development Unit, Worthing Hospital, Park Avenue, Worthing

Awb Stanton

Division of Physiological Medicine, Department of Medicine, St George's Hospital Medical School, London

C. Badger

Objectives: To provide an overview of physical and psychological outcome indicators which have been used to evaluate conservative treatments for chronic oedema.

Methods of finding papers: Papers were located via the MedLine, CINAHL and GEARS databases, and the British Lymphology Interest Group Key References lists.

Issues reviewed: The literature reveals that only a small amount of work has addressed conceptual issues in outcome evaluation. Above all, outcome indicators have been adopted in clinical practice in a haphazard manner, with little discussion regarding the purpose of outcome assessment/measurement and little agreement on the most appropriate assessment/measurement techniques.

Results: Eleven outcome indicators appear in the literature, each of which is discussed in terms of instrumentation and application in clinical practice. Practitioners have focused on objective measures, with change in limb volume the outcome measure most commonly used.

Conclusion: It is concluded that more rigour is needed in many aspects of outcome evaluation. Practitioners and researchers in this field should become more questioning of existing evaluation practices, and should explore the many potential outcome indicators, such as limb movement and limb function, which have to date been neglected.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 11, No. 3, 181-191 (1997)
DOI: 10.1177/026921559701100301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ptjournalHome page
R. W Wilson, L. M Hutson, and D. VanStry
Comparison of 2 Quality-of-Life Questionnaires in Women Treated for Breast Cancer: The RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the Functional Living Index-Cancer
Physical Therapy, September 1, 2005; 85(9): 851 - 860.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ptjournalHome page
J. R Karges, B. E Mark, S J. Stikeleather, and T. W Worrell
Concurrent Validity of Upper-Extremity Volume Estimates: Comparison of Calculated Volume Derived From Girth Measurements and Water Displacement Volume
Physical Therapy, February 1, 2003; 83(2): 134 - 145.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
V. S. Erickson, M. L. Pearson, P. A. Ganz, J. Adams, and K. L. Kahn
Arm Edema in Breast Cancer Patients
J Natl Cancer Inst, January 17, 2001; 93(2): 96 - 111.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Advertisement