SCR-LIP-000006 · Claim · machine-readable JSON →
For ultrasound diagnosis of lower-limb lipedema, subcutaneous thickness cutoffs of >11.7 mm (pre-tibial), >17.9 mm (anterior thigh), >8.4 mm (lateral leg) and >7.0 mm (medial supramalleolar) provide reproducible reference values.
Claim at a glance
- Type
- diagnostic
- Knowledge state
- Emerging
- Evidence certainty
- low (GRADE)
- Evidence
- 2 source(s) · by Amato
- Answers
- 1 question(s)
- Dates
- 2026-05-30 → 2026-06-12
Structured evidence, machine-compiled — not a verdict.
Evidence over time
Evidence (2)
- Ultrasound criteria for lipedema diagnosis — Amato et al. (2021) ✓ verified — consistent · cross sectional · n=89 · 2021 · risk of bias: moderate · reading confidence: high
Youden/ROC cutoffs; later reused by Vargas 2025 and Foureaux 2025 - Lipedema: What we don’t know — van la Parra et al. (2023) ✓ verified — consistent · review · 2023 · reading confidence: high
“Diagnóstico de imagem: ultrassom de alta resolução diferencia lipedema (espessura subcutânea aumentada) de linfedema (espessura dérmica aumentada + ecogenicidade reduzida); cut-offs propostos por Amato et al.: subcutânea 11,7 mm pré-tibial, 17,9 mm coxa anterior, 8,4 mm lateral da perna”
Narrative review summarizing that high-resolution ultrasound can characterize lipedema via increased subcutaneous thickness with proposed quantitative cut-offs, while acknowledging no objective standardized imaging diagnostic exists.
Context (PECO)
Answers these questions
Gaps & caveats
Derived from a single Brazilian cohort; no prospective multicenter validation.
Change log
- 2026-05-30 — created
- 2026-05-31 — evidence added · corroborated by DOI:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.05.056
- 2026-06-12 — disputed evidence reviewed · Human review: synthesis — this source supports the claim's direction; the specific(s) it lacks are present in a sibling source (per-claim integrity clean). Accepted.