A systematic review of validated assessments methods for head and neck lymphedema.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the validity and reliability of existing measurement instruments for quantifying head and neck lymphedema. METHODS: Four databases were searched on January 31st, 2022. The COnsensus-based Standards for selecting health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklists were used for the risk of bias (ROB) assessment. RESULTS: Out of 3362 unique records, eight studies examined the reliability and validity of five measurement instruments of which one patient reported outcome. The Patterson scale for internal lymphedema and the patient reported head and neck external lymphedema and fibrosis (LIDS-H&N) demonstrated validity and reliability. For external lymphedema, none of the instruments had good reliability for all measuring points. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of sufficiently reliable and valid measurement instruments for external head and neck lymphedema. The Patterson scale and the patient reported LIDS-H&N seem reliable for clinical practice and research.

The challenge of dementia prevention trials and the role of quasi-experimental studies.

Observational studies have shown consistently that modifiable risk factors during life are associated with increased dementia risk in old age but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on dementia prevention evaluating the treatment of these risk factors did not find consistent effects on cognitive outcomes. The discrepancy in findings is potentially attributable to inherent differences between the two study designs. Although RCTs are the gold standard for establishing causality, designing and conducting an RCT for dementia prevention is complex. Quasi-experimental studies (QESs) may contribute to investigating causality without randomization. QESs use variation in exposure to a risk factor or intervention in an observational setting to deduct causal effects. Design-specific approaches are used to control for confounding, the main caveat of QESs. In this article we address the challenges, opportunities, and limitations of QESs for research into dementia prevention. HIGHLIGHTS: Despite consistent associations between modifiable risk factors and dementia, the mostly neutral effects of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenge the causality of these associations. RCTs in the field of dementia prevention are often problematic due to ethical, practical, or financial constraints, and their results may have limited generalizability. Four quasi-experimental study (QES) designs may be suitable to study causality between risk factors and dementia; we critically appraise these study designs for dementia-prevention studies. We describe how specific QES designs can be used to study the effects of risk-factor modification for 12 known risk factors for dementia.

The Association of Ancillary Diagnostic Tests With Outcome in Dementia.

OBJECTIVES: Dementia is a clinical diagnosis without curative treatment. It is uncertain whether ancillary testing is beneficial for patients. This study investigates the association between use of diagnostic tests and time to poor outcome and health care costs. DESIGN: Nationwide register-based cohort study using health care reimbursement data in the Netherlands. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: All Dutch hospitals, including 13,312 patients diagnosed with dementia in 2018. METHODS: Diagnostic testing included computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI), neuropsychological examination (NPE), nuclear imaging (PET/SPECT), electroencephalography (EEG), and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing. We compared time to poor outcome (institutionalization or death) and costs per month from 2018 to 2021 between those who underwent a specific diagnostic test in previous years to controls, propensity score matched for age, sex, type of hospital, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Time to poor outcome in those who underwent CT/MRI, EEG, or CSF testing was similar to those who did not, but was longer for those who underwent NPE. Time to poor outcome was shorter in patients who underwent PET/SPECT. Patients who underwent CSF testing or PET/SPECT had higher mean total health care costs as compared to controls (CSF €248, 95% CI 64-433; PET/SPECT: €315, 95% CI 179-451). NPE during the diagnostic trajectory was associated with lower total health care cost (-€127, 95% CI -62, -193). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: NPE was associated with longer time to poor outcome and lower health care costs, potentially due to confounding by indication. Patients who underwent neuroimaging (CT, MRI, SPECT/PET), CSF testing, or EEG for dementia diagnostics did not experience a longer time to poor outcome or lower health care costs. This emphasizes the importance of clinical examination as anchor for the diagnosis of dementia.

Lymphedema and Trismus after Head and Neck Cancer, and the Impact on Body Image and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: To assess the prevalence of chronic lymphedema and trismus in patients > 6 months after head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment, and to explore how the severity of these conditions correlates with body image and quality of life. METHODS: The cross-sectional sample included 59 patients, treated for HNC between six months to three years ago. Physical measurements were performed to assess the presence of external lymphedema and trismus (<36 mm). Furthermore, participants completed two questionnaires regarding body image (BIS) and quality of life (UW-QoL V4). RESULTS: Lymphedema prevalence was 94.1% (95% CI 0.86-0.98), with a median severity score of 9 (range 0-24). Trismus prevalence in this sample was 1.2%. The median BIS score was 2, indicating a positive body image. The UW-QoL score showed a good QOL with a median of 100. Only the domain of saliva and overall related health had a lower median of 70 and 60, respectively. There was no correlation between lymphedema and body image (r = 0.08, p = 0.544). Patients with higher lymphedema scores reported poorer speech with a moderate correlation (r = -0.39, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Lymphedema is a highly prevalent, but moderately severe late side-effect of HNC with a limited impact on quality of life domains except for speech, in our cohort.