138 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34751478)
1. Can the CutiScan CS 100
Anthonissen M; Van den Kerckhove E; Moortgat P; Geraerts I; Devoogdt N; De Vrieze T; De Groef A
Skin Res Technol; 2022 Mar; 28(2):246-253. PubMed ID: 34751478
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. An evaluation tool for myofascial adhesions in patients after breast cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool): Development and interrater reliability.
De Groef A; Van Kampen M; Vervloesem N; De Geyter S; Dieltjens E; Christiaens MR; Neven P; Geraerts I; Devoogdt N
PLoS One; 2017; 12(6):e0179116. PubMed ID: 28598978
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Reliability and Photographic Equivalency of the Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating (SCAR) Scale, an Outcome Measure for Postoperative Scars.
Kantor J
JAMA Dermatol; 2017 Jan; 153(1):55-60. PubMed ID: 27806156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. An evaluation tool for Myofascial Adhesions in Patients after Breast Cancer (MAP-BC evaluation tool): Concurrent, face and content validity.
De Groef A; Van Kampen M; Moortgat P; Anthonissen M; Van den Kerckhove E; Christiaens MR; Neven P; Geraerts I; Devoogdt N
PLoS One; 2018; 13(3):e0193915. PubMed ID: 29522540
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Reliability of modified adheremeter and digital pressure algometer in measuring normal abdominal tissue and C-section scars.
Kelly-Martin R; Doughty L; Garkavi M; Wasserman JB
J Bodyw Mov Ther; 2018 Oct; 22(4):972-979. PubMed ID: 30368344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Reliability and validity testing of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in evaluating linear scars after breast cancer surgery.
Truong PT; Lee JC; Soer B; Gaul CA; Olivotto IA
Plast Reconstr Surg; 2007 Feb; 119(2):487-94. PubMed ID: 17230080
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Validation of a new device to measure postsurgical scar adherence.
Ferriero G; Vercelli S; Salgovic L; Stissi V; Sartorio F
Phys Ther; 2010 May; 90(5):776-83. PubMed ID: 20223947
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Reliability of scar assessments performed with an integrated skin testing device - the DermaLab Combo(®).
Gankande TU; Duke JM; Danielsen PL; DeJong HM; Wood FM; Wallace HJ
Burns; 2014 Dec; 40(8):1521-9. PubMed ID: 24630817
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Quantitative measurement of hypertrophic scar: interrater reliability and concurrent validity.
Nedelec B; Correa JA; Rachelska G; Armour A; LaSalle L
J Burn Care Res; 2008; 29(3):501-11. PubMed ID: 18388576
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Anisotropic mechanical characterization of human skin by in vivo multi-axial ring suction test.
Elouneg A; Chambert J; Lejeune A; Lucot Q; Jacquet E; Bordas SPA
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2023 May; 141():105779. PubMed ID: 36940583
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Interrater and intrarater reliability of the Semmes Weinstein aesthesiometer to assess touch pressure threshold in burn scars.
Meirte J; Moortgat P; Truijen S; Maertens K; Lafaire C; De Cuyper L; Hubens G; Van Daele U
Burns; 2015 Sep; 41(6):1261-7. PubMed ID: 25703663
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Reliability of the skin compliance device in the assessment of scar pliability.
Cleary C; Sanders AK; Nick TG
J Hand Ther; 2007; 20(3):232-7; quiz 238. PubMed ID: 17658416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. A reliable, non-invasive measurement tool for anisotropy in normal skin and scar tissue.
Verhaegen PD; Res EM; van Engelen A; Middelkoop E; van Zuijlen PP
Skin Res Technol; 2010 Aug; 16(3):325-31. PubMed ID: 20637002
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Transepidermal water loss measured with the Tewameter TM300 in burn scars.
Gardien KL; Baas DC; de Vet HC; Middelkoop E
Burns; 2016 Nov; 42(7):1455-1462. PubMed ID: 27233677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. An effective procedure for skin stiffness measurement to improve Paediatric Burn Care.
Elrod J; Müller B; Mohr C; Meuli M; Mazza E; Schiestl C
Burns; 2019 Aug; 45(5):1102-1111. PubMed ID: 30833098
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Quantifying the aesthetic outcomes of breast cancer treatment: assessment of surgical scars from clinical photographs.
Kim MS; Rodney WN; Reece GP; Beahm EK; Crosby MA; Markey MK
J Eval Clin Pract; 2011 Dec; 17(6):1075-82. PubMed ID: 20630016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Intra and interrater reliability of spinal sagittal curves and mobility using pocket goniometer IncliMed® in healthy subjects.
Alderighi M; Ferrari R; Maghini I; Del Felice A; Masiero S
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil; 2016 Nov; 29(4):873-880. PubMed ID: 27392840
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
