Traditional Chinese Medicine Nursing for Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
In brief
Traditional Chinese medicine nursing boosts lymphedema response rate by 22%
A meta-analysis of 26 trials involving 2,315 women found that adding TCM nursing to standard care raised the overall clinical response by about one-fifth and cut pain scores by roughly one point on a ten-point scale, while improving arm function. No serious side effects were reported, but high study heterogeneity and lack of blinding mean the results should be interpreted cautiously.
- Journal
- Holistic nursing practice (Q2)
- Published
- 23 July 2026
- Study design
- Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
- Authors
- Shengling Li, Lei Pan, Jing Wang, Tao Wang, Xiangni Zou
- PMID
- 42487169
- DOI
- 10.1097/HNP.0000000000000803
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (top studies of the week, 26 July 2026): TCM nursing for breast cancer lymphedema meta-analysis
Abstract
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) nursing interventions for breast cancer-related lymphedema. A comprehensive search of 6 databases identified 26 randomized controlled trials involving 2315 participants. TCM nursing significantly improved the overall clinical response rate (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.27, I2 = 0%), reduced Visual Analogue Scale pain scores (mean difference = -1.20, 95% CI, -1.41 to -1.00), and enhanced upper limb function (standardized mean difference = -1.33, 95% CI, -1.56 to -1.09). Subgroup analyses for affected limb circumference showed potential benefits, but substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 91%) precluded overall pooling. No severe adverse events were reported. Current evidence suggests TCM nursing may be an effective and safe adjunctive therapy for breast cancer-related lymphedema; however, methodological limitations, including a lack of blinding, warrant cautious interpretation. Further rigorous trials are needed to confirm these findings.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.