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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Reliability of subjective wound assessment.
    Author: Bloemen MC, van Zuijlen PP, Middelkoop E.
    Journal: Burns; 2011 Jun; 37(4):566-71. PubMed ID: 21388743.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Assessment of the take of split-skin graft and the rate of epithelialisation are important parameters in burn surgery. Such parameters are normally estimated by the clinician in a bedside procedure. This study investigates whether this subjective assessment is reliable for graft take and wound epithelialisation. METHODS: Observers involved in the field of burns (experienced, medium-experienced and inexperienced observers), and dermatologists specialized in the field of wound healing evaluated the percentage graft take and epithelialisation in 50 photographic skin-grafted burn wounds. Reliability was tested using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Intra- and interobserver reliability of parameter graft take was highest within the experienced observers (ICC average > 0.91), followed by medium- and inexperienced observers (ICC average > 0.80 and ICC average > 0.68). Parameter epithelialisation showed the same pattern of intra- and interobserver ICC scores (experienced > medium > inexperienced). Interobserver ICC single scores of the experienced group were reasonable to good. Interobserver reliability of the dermatologists was similar to medium-experienced observers. CONCLUSIONS: Our data show that one experienced observer can obtain adequate reliable results by means of a single assessment of graft take and epithelialisation. Furthermore, experience of the observer results in an increase of reliability.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]