Comparison of Clinical Estimation and Stereophotogrammic Instrumented Imaging of Burn Scar Height and Volume

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2024-02-12 DOI:10.3390/ebj5010004

S. Bharadia, Vincent Gabriel

{"title":"Comparison of Clinical Estimation and Stereophotogrammic Instrumented Imaging of Burn Scar Height and Volume","authors":"S. Bharadia, Vincent Gabriel","doi":"10.3390/ebj5010004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Descriptive clinical tools for characterizing burn scars are limited by between-user variability and unknown sensitivity to change over time. We previously described preclinical assessment of stereophotogrammetry as a valid measure of burn-related scars. Here, we compared the estimated vs. instrumented measurements of maximum height and total positive volume of 26 burn scars. The burn scars were imaged with the QuantifiCare LifeViz Micro 3D camera. Three experienced wound care therapists first estimated, then measured using 3D Track software, the imaged scars’ height and volume. Two-factor analysis without replication was performed to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between assessors’ estimated scar height and volume, and measured height and volume. Two-sided Wilcoxon tests were performed comparing the mean estimated height and volume with the estimated and measured outputs. The estimated scar height’s ICC was 0.595, and for volume, it was 0.531. The measured scar height’s ICC was 0.933 and for volume, it was 0.890. The estimated and measured volume were significantly different (z = −2.87, p = 0.041), while the estimated and measured height were not (z = −1.39, p = 0.161). Stereophotogrammic measurement of scar height and volume is more reliable than clinical photograph assessment. Stereophotogrammetry should be utilized when assessing burn scar height and volume, rather than subjective estimates from clinical scar tools.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ebj5010004","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Descriptive clinical tools for characterizing burn scars are limited by between-user variability and unknown sensitivity to change over time. We previously described preclinical assessment of stereophotogrammetry as a valid measure of burn-related scars. Here, we compared the estimated vs. instrumented measurements of maximum height and total positive volume of 26 burn scars. The burn scars were imaged with the QuantifiCare LifeViz Micro 3D camera. Three experienced wound care therapists first estimated, then measured using 3D Track software, the imaged scars’ height and volume. Two-factor analysis without replication was performed to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) between assessors’ estimated scar height and volume, and measured height and volume. Two-sided Wilcoxon tests were performed comparing the mean estimated height and volume with the estimated and measured outputs. The estimated scar height’s ICC was 0.595, and for volume, it was 0.531. The measured scar height’s ICC was 0.933 and for volume, it was 0.890. The estimated and measured volume were significantly different (z = −2.87, p = 0.041), while the estimated and measured height were not (z = −1.39, p = 0.161). Stereophotogrammic measurement of scar height and volume is more reliable than clinical photograph assessment. Stereophotogrammetry should be utilized when assessing burn scar height and volume, rather than subjective estimates from clinical scar tools.

查看原文本刊更多论文

烧伤疤痕高度和体积的临床估算与立体摄影仪器成像的比较

用于描述烧伤疤痕特征的描述性临床工具因用户之间的差异和对随时间变化的敏感性未知而受到限制。我们曾将立体摄影测量作为烧伤相关疤痕的有效测量方法进行过临床前评估。在这里，我们比较了 26 个烧伤疤痕的最大高度和总阳性体积的估计测量值与仪器测量值。烧伤疤痕使用 QuantifiCare LifeViz Micro 3D 相机进行成像。三位经验丰富的伤口护理治疗师首先估算了成像疤痕的高度和体积，然后使用 3D Track 软件进行了测量。在计算评估者估计的疤痕高度和体积与测量的高度和体积之间的类内相关系数 (ICC) 时，进行了无重复的双因素分析。对估计高度和体积的平均值与估计值和测量值进行了双侧 Wilcoxon 检验。估计疤痕高度的 ICC 为 0.595，体积的 ICC 为 0.531。测量疤痕高度的 ICC 为 0.933，测量体积的 ICC 为 0.890。估计值和测量值的体积差异很大（z = -2.87，p = 0.041），而估计值和测量值的高度差异不大（z = -1.39，p = 0.161）。疤痕高度和体积的立体摄影测量比临床照片评估更可靠。在评估烧伤疤痕高度和体积时，应使用立体摄影测量法，而不是使用临床疤痕工具进行主观估计。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.