Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2011 Apr;127(4):1561-1570.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820a641a.

Objective scar assessment tools: a clinimetric appraisal

Pauline D H M Verhaegen  1 , Martijn B A van der Wal, Esther Middelkoop, Paul P M van Zuijlen
Affiliations
Review

Objective scar assessment tools: a clinimetric appraisal

Pauline D H M Verhaegen et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Scars may lead to an array of cosmetic, psychological, and functional problems. Different scar features can be distinguished (i.e., color, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area) that are clinically relevant and contribute to the quality and judgment of a scar. Today, objective evaluation of these scar features is indispensable for practicing evidence-based medicine (e.g., to evaluate the outcome of clinical trials). In this review, an overview and update are given on the most relevant noninvasive objective measurement tools for scar evaluation.

Methods: A PubMed literature search was performed. Articles evaluating the clinimetric properties of noninvasive scar assessment tools were included. The selected objective measurement tools were then critically reviewed with respect to the clinimetric properties of reliability, validity, and feasibility.

Results: In total, 75 articles were selected and 23 different noninvasive measurement methods were evaluated.

Conclusion: Based on the scar features color, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area, the best measurement tools that are currently available were recommended.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver Scar Scale: An administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16:535–538.
    1. Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11:256–260.
    1. van de Kar AL, Corion LU, Smeulders MJ, et al. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116:514–522.
    1. Brusselaers N, Pirayesh A, Hoeksema H, Verbelen J, Blot S, Monstrey S. Burn scar assessment: A systematic review of objective scar assessment tools. Burns 2010;36:1157–1164.
    1. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Reliability. In: Streiner DL, Norman GR, eds. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008:167–210.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources