Dataset Information

Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients.

ABSTRACT: Several scar-scoring scales exist to clinically monitor burn scar development and maturation. Although scoring scars through direct clinical examination is ideal, scars must sometimes be scored from photographs. No scar scale currently exists for the latter purpose.We modified a previously described scar scale (Yeong et al., J Burn Care Rehabil 1997) and tested the reliability of this new scale in assessing burn scars from photographs. The new scale consisted of three parameters as follows: scar height, surface appearance, and color mismatch. Each parameter was assigned a score of 1 (best) to 4 (worst), generating a total score of 3-12. Five physicians with burns training scored 120 representative photographs using the original and modified scales. Reliability was analyzed using coefficient of agreement, Cronbach alpha, intraclass correlation coefficient, variance, and coefficient of variance. Analysis of variance was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Color mismatch and scar height scores were validated by analyzing actual height and color differences.The intraclass correlation coefficient, the coefficient of agreement, and Cronbach alpha were higher for the modified scale than those of the original scale. The original scale produced more variance than that in the modified scale. Subanalysis demonstrated that, for all categories, the modified scale had greater correlation and reliability than the original scale. The correlation between color mismatch scores and actual color differences was 0.84 and between scar height scores and actual height was 0.81.The modified scar scale is a simple, reliable, and useful scale for evaluating photographs of burn patients.

SUBMITTER: Mecott GA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4508235 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients.

Mecott Gabriel A GA Finnerty Celeste C CC Herndon David N DN Al-Mousawi Ahmed M AM Branski Ludwik K LK Hegde Sachin S Kraft Robert R Williams Felicia N FN Maldonado Susana A SA Rivero Haidy G HG Rodriguez-Escobar Noe N Jeschke Marc G MG

The Journal of surgical research 20141106 2

<h4>Background</h4>Several scar-scoring scales exist to clinically monitor burn scar development and maturation. Although scoring scars through direct clinical examination is ideal, scars must sometimes be scored from photographs. No scar scale currently exists for the latter purpose.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We modified a previously described scar scale (Yeong et al., J Burn Care Rehabil 1997) and tested the reliability of this new scale in assessing burn scars from photographs. The new sca ...[more]

PMID: 26092214

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral scoring systems are used to assess fecal incontinence (FI), among which, the most commonly used are Wexner and Vaizey's scoring systems. However, there are significant lacunae in these scoring systems, due to which they are neither accurate nor comprehensive.AimTo develop a new scoring system for FI that is accurate, comprehensive, and easy to use.MethodsA pro forma was made in which six types of FI were included: solid, liquid, flatus, mucous, stress, and urge. The weight for each FI was determined by asking a group of patients and laypersons to give a disability score to each type of FI from 0 to 100 (0- least, 100- maximum disability). The disability was assessed on a modified EQ-5D+ (EuroQol) description system, 4D3L (4 dimensions and 3 levels) for each FI. The average score of each FI was calculated, divided by 10, and rounded off to determine the weight of each FI type. The scores for the three levels of frequency of each FI were assigned as never = 0 (No episode of FI ever), occasional = 1 (≤ 1 episode of FI/ wk), and common = 2 (> 1 episode of FI/ wk), and was termed as frequency score. The score for each FI would be derived by multiplying the frequency score and the weight for that FI type. In the second phase of the study, a group of colorectal surgeons was asked to rank the six FI types in order of severity, and their ranking was compared with the patient and laypersons' rankings.ResultsFifty patients and 50 laypersons participated in the study. The weight was assigned to each FI (solid-8, liquid-8, urge-7, flatus-6, mucus-6, and stress-5), and an new scoring system was formulated. The maximum possible score was 80 (total incontinence), and the least 0 (no incontinence). The surgeons' ranking of FI severity did not correlate well with patients' and laypersons' rankings of FI, highlighting that surgeons and patients may perceive the severity of FI differently.ConclusionA new scoring system for FI was formulated, which was simple, logical, comprehensive, and easy to use, and eliminated previous shortcomings. Patients' and surgeons' perceptions of FI severity of FI did not correlate well.

Project description:ContextThe Landing Error Scoring System (LESS) is a clinical tool often used in research and practice to identify athletes presenting high injury-risk biomechanical patterns during a jump-landing task.ObjectiveTo systematically review the literature addressing the psychometric properties of the LESS.Data sourcesThree electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched on March 28, 2018, using the term "Landing Error Scoring System."Study selectionAll studies using the LESS as main outcome measure and addressing its reliability, validity against motion capture system, and predictive validity were included. Original English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals were reviewed. Studies using modified versions of the LESS were excluded.Study designSystematic literature review.Level of evidenceLevel 4.Data extractionStudy design, population, LESS testing procedures, LESS scores, statistical analysis, and main results were extracted from studies using a standardized template.ResultsTen studies met inclusion criteria and were appraised using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale adapted for cross-sectional studies. The overall LESS score demonstrated good-to-excellent intrarater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.82-0.99), interrater (ICC, 0.83-0.92), and intersession reliability (ICC, 0.81). The validity of the overall LESS score against 3-dimensional jump-landing biomechanics was good when individuals were divided into 4 quartiles based on LESS scores. The validity of individual LESS items versus 3-dimensional motion capture data was moderate-to-excellent for most of the items addressing key risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. The predictive value of the LESS for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries remains uncertain based on the current scientific evidence.ConclusionThe LESS is a reliable screening tool. However, further work is needed to improve the LESS validity against motion capture system and confirm its predictive validity for ACL and other noncontact lower-extremity injuries.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to determine the longitudinal validity, reproducibility, responsiveness and interpretability of the adult version of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile, a patient-report measure of health-related quality of life.MethodsA prospective longitudinal cohort study of patients with or at risk of burn scarring was conducted at three assessment points (at baseline around the time of wound healing, one to two weeks post-baseline and 1-month post-baseline). Participants attending a major metropolitan adult burn centre at baseline were recruited. Participants completed the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey and Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs), smallest detectable change, percentage of those who improved, stayed the same or worsened and Area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) were used to test the aim.ResultsData were included for 118 participants at baseline, 68 participants at one to two weeks and 57 participants at 1-month post-baseline. All groups of items had acceptable reproducibility, except for the overall impact of burn scars (ICC = 0.69), the impact of sensations which was not expected to be stable (ICC = 0.63), mobility and daily activities (ICC = 0.63, 0.67 respectively). The responsiveness of six out of seven groups of items able to be tested against external criterion was supported (AUC = 0.72-0.75). Hypothesised correlations of changes in the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile items with changes in criterion measures generally supported longitudinal validity (e.g., nine out of thirteen hypotheses using the SF-36 as an external criterion were supported). Internal consistency estimates, item-total and inter-item correlations indicated there was likely redundancy of some groups of items, particularly in the relationships and social interaction, appearance and emotional reactions items (Chronbach's alpha range = 0.94-0.95).ConclusionSupport was found for the reproducibility, longitudinal validity, responsiveness and interpretability of most groups of Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile items and some individual items in the test population. Potential redundancy of items should be investigated further.

Dataset Information

Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients.

Publications

Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets