209 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31208769)
1. Incorporation of 3D stereophotogrammetry as a reliable method for assessing scar volume in standard clinical practice.
Peake M; Pan K; Rotatori RM; Powell H; Fowler L; James L; Dale E
Burns; 2019 Nov; 45(7):1614-1620. PubMed ID: 31208769
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Evaluating accuracy and reliability of active stereophotogrammetry using MAVIS III Wound Camera for three-dimensional assessment of hypertrophic scars.
Su S; Sinha S; Gabriel V
Burns; 2017 Sep; 43(6):1263-1270. PubMed ID: 28363664
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. In a clinimetric analysis, 3D stereophotogrammetry was found to be reliable and valid for measuring scar volume in clinical research.
Stekelenburg CM; Jaspers ME; Niessen FB; Knol DL; van der Wal MB; de Vet HC; van Zuijlen PP
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Jul; 68(7):782-7. PubMed ID: 25817943
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools.
Lee KC; Bamford A; Gardiner F; Agovino A; Ter Horst B; Bishop J; Sitch A; Grover L; Logan A; Moiemen NS
Burns; 2019 Sep; 45(6):1311-1324. PubMed ID: 31327551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Three-dimensional imaging for volume measurement of hypertrophic and keloid scars, reliability of a previously validated simplified technique in clinical setting.
Verhiel SH; Piatkowski de Grzymala AA; Van den Kerckhove E; Colla C; van der Hulst RR
Skin Res Technol; 2016 Nov; 22(4):513-518. PubMed ID: 27283970
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Ultrasound is a reproducible and valid tool for measuring scar height in children with burn scars: A cross-sectional study of the psychometric properties and utility of the ultrasound and 3D camera.
Simons M; Kee EG; Kimble R; Tyack Z
Burns; 2017 Aug; 43(5):993-1001. PubMed ID: 28238405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Effect of skin graft thickness on scar development in a porcine burn model.
DeBruler DM; Blackstone BN; McFarland KL; Baumann ME; Supp DM; Bailey JK; Powell HM
Burns; 2018 Jun; 44(4):917-930. PubMed ID: 29661554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Burns objective scar scale (BOSS): Validation of an objective measurement devices based burn scar scale panel.
Lee KC; Bamford A; Gardiner F; Agovino A; Ter Horst B; Bishop J; Grover L; Logan A; Moiemen N
Burns; 2020 Feb; 46(1):110-120. PubMed ID: 31708256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Scientific validation of three-dimensional stereophotogrammetry compared to the IGAIS clinical scale for assessing wrinkles and scars after laser treatment.
Machado BHB; De Melo E Silva ID; Pautrat WM; Frame J; Najlah M
Sci Rep; 2021 Jun; 11(1):12385. PubMed ID: 34117340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Application of tissue ultrasound palpation system (TUPS) in objective scar evaluation.
Lau JC; Li-Tsang CW; Zheng YP
Burns; 2005 Jun; 31(4):445-52. PubMed ID: 15896506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Comparison between high-frequency ultrasonography and histological assessment reveals weak correlation for measurements of scar tissue thickness.
Agabalyan NA; Su S; Sinha S; Gabriel V
Burns; 2017 May; 43(3):531-538. PubMed ID: 28109548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Three-dimensional digital stereophotogrammetry: a reliable and valid technique for measuring scar surface area.
Stekelenburg CM; van der Wal MBA; Knol DL; de Vet HCW; van Zuijlen PPM
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2013 Jul; 132(1):204-211. PubMed ID: 23806921
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The Scarbase Duo(®): Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability and validity of a compact dual scar assessment tool.
Fell M; Meirte J; Anthonissen M; Maertens K; Pleat J; Moortgat P
Burns; 2016 Mar; 42(2):336-44. PubMed ID: 26774602
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. A clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of 3D technology for scar surface area measurement.
Doomen MCHA; Rijpma D; Pijpe A; Meij-de Vries A; Niessen FB; Karaoglu S; de Vet HCW; Gevers T; van Zuijlen PPM
Burns; 2023 May; 49(3):583-594. PubMed ID: 36764836
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Objective assessment of burn scar vascularity, erythema, pliability, thickness, and planimetry.
Oliveira GV; Chinkes D; Mitchell C; Oliveras G; Hawkins HK; Herndon DN
Dermatol Surg; 2005 Jan; 31(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 15720096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Direct comparison of reproducibility and reliability in quantitative assessments of burn scar properties.
Baumann ME; DeBruler DM; Blackstone BN; Coffey RA; Boyce ST; Supp DM; Bailey JK; Powell HM
Burns; 2021 Mar; 47(2):466-478. PubMed ID: 32839037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Advances in Research in Animal Models of Burn-Related Hypertrophic Scarring.
Domergue S; Jorgensen C; Noël D
J Burn Care Res; 2015; 36(5):e259-66. PubMed ID: 25356852
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 3-D wound scanner: A novel, effective, reliable, and convenient tool for measuring scar area.
Jin J; Li H; Chen Z; Sheng J; Liu T; Ma B; Zhu S; Xia Z
Burns; 2018 Dec; 44(8):1930-1939. PubMed ID: 30509366
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Longitudinal burn scar quantification.
Nedelec B; Correa JA; de Oliveira A; LaSalle L; Perrault I
Burns; 2014 Dec; 40(8):1504-12. PubMed ID: 24703337
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A modified Vancouver Scar Scale linked with TBSA (mVSS-TBSA): Inter-rater reliability of an innovative burn scar assessment method.
Gankande TU; Wood FM; Edgar DW; Duke JM; DeJong HM; Henderson AE; Wallace HJ
Burns; 2013 Sep; 39(6):1142-9. PubMed ID: 23433706
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
