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: Digital image analysis versus clinical assessment of wound epithelialization: a validation study.
    Author: Bloemen MC, Boekema BK, Vlig M, van Zuijlen PP, Middelkoop E.
    Journal: Burns; 2012 Jun; 38(4):501-5. PubMed ID: 22381563.
    Abstract:
    To evaluate the progress in wound healing, wound assessment is mandatory. Epithelialization is traditionally assessed subjectively by the clinician. In a previous study, subjective assessment of epithelialization was shown to be reliable. In this study, reliability of epithelialization measured by digital image analysis was investigated and then, we validated the subjective evaluation by comparing this assessment to measurements with digital image analysis. Clinicians assessed epithelialization in 50 burn wounds that were treated with a split skin graft. Epithelialization of these wounds was also measured by three observers using digital image analysis. Reliability of digital image analysis was tested using the intraclass correlation (IC). To test validity, subjective clinical assessment was correlated with digital image analysis (IC). The results showed that interobserver reliability of epithelialization measured by digital image analysis was good (IC coefficient 0.74). Subjective clinical assessment of epithelialization showed a strong correlation with digital image analysis (IC coefficient 0.80). In conclusion, subjective clinical evaluation of wound epithelialization is as good as an objective measure, in this study digital image analysis. Since digital image analysis is more time-consuming, we recommend the use of the subjective evaluation for daily practice.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]