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
. 2021 Jun 23:8:643098.
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.643098. eCollection 2021.

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

Amanda Min Hui Choo  1 , Yee Siang Ong  2 , Fadi Issa  3   4
Affiliations
Review

Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?

Amanda Min Hui Choo et al. Front Surg. .

Abstract

Healing after dermal injury is a complex but imperfect process that results in a wide range of visible scars. The degree of disfigurement is not the sole determinant of a scar's effect on patient well-being, with a number of other factors being critical to outcome. These include cosmetic appearance, symptoms such as itch and pain, functional loss, psychological or social problems, and quality of life. An accurate assessment of these domains can help clinicians measure outcomes, develop, and evaluate treatment strategies. A PubMed literature search was performed up to 31st March 2020. Ten objective scar measurements, four Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures (CROMs), six Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), and one combined measure were evaluated for their reliability, clinical relevance, responsiveness to clinical change, and feasibility. Many quantitative tools were limited in their clinical relevance and feasibility, whereas few qualitative CROMs and PROMs have undergone rigorous assessment. This review examines currently available assessment tools, focusing primarily on subjective scar measurements (CROMs, PROMs), and offers a perspective on future directions in the field.

Keywords: burn scar assessment; clinician reported outcomes; linear scars; patient reported outcome; scar assessment; surgical scar.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A proposed guide to how to use currently available scar assessment tools.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Williams NS, O'Connell PR, McCaskie AW. Bailey & Love's Short Practice of Surgery. 27 ed. CRC Press; (2018).
    1. Ferguson MWJ, Whitby DJ, Shah M, Armstrong J, Siebert JW, Longaker MT. Scar formation: the spectral nature of wound repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. (1996) 97:854–60. 10.1097/00006534-199604000-00029 - DOI - PubMed
    1. van de Kar AL, Corion LUM, Smeulders MJC, Draaijers LJ, van der Horst CMAM, van Zuijlen PPM. Reliable and feasible evaluation of linear scars by the patient and observer scar assessment scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2005) 116:514–22. 10.1097/01.prs.0000172982.43599.d6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MWJ. Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. (2009) 62:713–20. 10.1016/j.bjps.2009.01.080 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Verhaegen PDHM, van der Wal MBA, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen PPM. Objective scar assessment tools: a clinimetric appraisal. Plast Reconstr Surg. (2011) 127:1561–70. 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31820a641a - DOI - PubMed