These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

137 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9261704)

  • 1. Improved burn scar assessment with use of a new scar-rating scale.
    Yeong EK; Mann R; Engrav LH; Goldberg M; Cain V; Costa B; Moore M; Nakamura D; Lee J
    J Burn Care Rehabil; 1997; 18(4):353-5; discussion 352. PubMed ID: 9261704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Reliability testing of a new scar assessment tool, Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs (MAPS).
    Masters M; McMahon M; Svens B
    J Burn Care Rehabil; 2005; 26(3):273-84. PubMed ID: 15879752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. The evaluation of a clinical scar scale for porcine burn scars.
    Wang XQ; Kravchuk O; Liu PY; Kempf M; Boogaard CV; Lau P; Cuttle L; Mill J; Kimble RM
    Burns; 2009 Jun; 35(4):538-46. PubMed ID: 19201543
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Exploring reliability of scar rating scales using photographs of burns from children aged up to 15 years.
    Simons M; Ziviani J; Thorley M; McNee J; Tyack Z
    J Burn Care Res; 2013; 34(4):427-38. PubMed ID: 23271058
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Reliable scar scoring system to assess photographs of burn patients.
    Mecott GA; Finnerty CC; Herndon DN; Al-Mousawi AM; Branski LK; Hegde S; Kraft R; Williams FN; Maldonado SA; Rivero HG; Rodriguez-Escobar N; Jeschke MG
    J Surg Res; 2015 Dec; 199(2):688-97. PubMed ID: 26092214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Determination of inter-rater reliability in pediatric burn scar assessment using a modified version of the Vancouver Scar Scale.
    Forbes-Duchart L; Marshall S; Strock A; Cooper JE
    J Burn Care Res; 2007; 28(3):460-7. PubMed ID: 17438503
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability.
    Baryza MJ; Baryza GA
    J Burn Care Rehabil; 1995; 16(5):535-8. PubMed ID: 8537427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Health professionals' and consumers' opinion: what is considered important when rating burn scars from photographs?
    Simons M; Tyack Z
    J Burn Care Res; 2011; 32(2):275-85. PubMed ID: 21233729
    [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. Visual assessment of linear scars: a new tool.
    Kerrigan CL; Homa K
    Plast Reconstr Surg; 2009 Nov; 124(5):1513-1519. PubMed ID: 20009837
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Changes in subjective vs objective burn scar assessment over time: does the patient agree with what we think?
    Martin D; Umraw N; Gomez M; Cartotto R
    J Burn Care Rehabil; 2003; 24(4):239-44; discussion 238. PubMed ID: 14501421
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Reliability testing of the Matching Assessment using Photographs of Scars App.
    Klotz T; Kurmis R
    Wound Repair Regen; 2020 Sep; 28(5):676-683. PubMed ID: 32347998
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The challenge of objective scar colour assessment in a clinical setting: using digital photography.
    Anderson JC; Hallam MJ; Nduka C; Osorio D
    J Wound Care; 2015 Aug; 24(8):379-87. PubMed ID: 26562381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Rating the burn scar.
    Sullivan T; Smith J; Kermode J; McIver E; Courtemanche DJ
    J Burn Care Rehabil; 1990; 11(3):256-60. PubMed ID: 2373734
    [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. Predictive validity of short term scar quality on final burn scar outcome using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale in patients with minor to moderate burn severity.
    Goei H; van der Vlies CH; Tuinebreijer WE; van Zuijlen PPM; Middelkoop E; van Baar ME
    Burns; 2017 Jun; 43(4):715-723. PubMed ID: 28040371
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. 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]  

  • 19. 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]  

  • 20. Scar outcome of children with partial thickness burns: A 3 and 6 month follow up.
    Gee Kee EL; Kimble RM; Cuttle L; Stockton KA
    Burns; 2016 Feb; 42(1):97-103. PubMed ID: 26546385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.