Objective measurement of scarring by multiple assessors: Is the tissue tonometer a reliable option?

Journal of Burn Care and Research

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 520-523

  Corica, Gavin Frank ^a   Wigger, Nicholas Charles ^a   Edgar, Dale Wesley ^a,b,d,e   Wood, Fiona Melanie ^a,b,c,d   Carroll, Sara ^a  

^a CURTIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b PRINCESS MARGARET HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^d McComb Foundation   (Australia)

^e ROYAL PERTH HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERTROPHIC SCAR; INCIDENCE; MALE; PATIENT CARE; POPULATION RESEARCH; SCAR FORMATION; TONOMETER; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; BURNS; CICATRIX; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MANOMETRY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PLIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SINGLE-BLIND METHOD;

EID: 33749439558     PISSN: 1559047X     EISSN: 15590488     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.BCR.0000225963.41796.54     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bombaro K, Engrav LH, Carrougher, et al. What is the prevalence of hypertrophic scarring following burns? Burns 2003;29:299-302.
2. Deitch EA, Wheelaham TM, Rose MP, Clothier J, Cotter J. Hypertrophic burn scars: analysis of variables. J Trauma 1983;23:895-8.
3. McDonald WS, Deitch EA. Hypertrophic skin grafts in burned patients: a prospective analysis of variables. J Trauma 1987;27:147-50.
4. McOwan CG, MacDermid JC, Wilton J. Outcome measures for evaluation of scar: a literature review. J Hand Ther 2001;14:77-85.
5. Powers P, Sarkar S, Goldgof D, et al. Scar assessment: current problems and future solutions. J Burn Care Rehabil 1999;20:54-60.
6. Nedelec B, Shankowsky RN, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver scar scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000;21:205-12.
7. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver scar scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil 1995;16:535-8.
8. Martin D, Umraw N, Gomez M, et al. Changes in subjective vs objective burn scar assessment over time: does the patient agree with what we think? J Burn Care Rehabil 2003;24:239-44.
9. Oliveira GV, Chinkes D, Michell C, et al. Objective assessment of burn scar vascularity, erythema, pliability, thickness, and planimetry. Derm Surg 2005;11:48-58.
10. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, et al. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil 1990;11:256-60.
11. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.
12. Boyce ST, Supp AP, Wickett RR, et al. Assessment with the dermal torque meter of skin pliability after treatment of burns with cultured skin substitutes. J Burn Care Rehabil 2000;21:55-63.
13. Lye I, Edgar DW, Wood FM, et al. Tissue tonometry is a simple, objective measure for pliability of burn scar: Is it reliable? J Burn Care Res 2006;1:82-5.
14. Liu NF, Olszewski W. Use of tonometry to assess lower extremity lymphedema. Lymphology 1992;25:155-8.
15. Chen HC, O'Brien BM, Pribaz JJ, Roberts AH. The use of tonometry in the assessment of upper extremity lymphoedema. Br J Plast Surg 1988;41:399-402.
16. Magliaro A, Romanelli M. Skin hardness measurement in hypertrophic scars. Wounds 2003;15:66-70.
17. Portney LG, Watkins MP, Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.
18. Jussila J, Leppaniemi A, Paronen M, et al. Ballistic skin simulant. Forensic Sci Int 2005;150:63-71.
19. Wilhelmi BJ. Wound healing, widened and hypertrophic scars. Emedicine Specialties January 25th 2005. Available at: http://www.emedicine.com/plastic/ topic537.htm; Internet; accessed May 4, 2006.