Cargando…

Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds

BACKGROUND: In many clinical trials on cutaneous healing, wound closure is the primary endpoint and single most important outcome parameter, making precise assessment of this time point one of utmost importance. The assessment of wound closure can be performed either by subjective clinical inspectio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver, Fimmers, Rolf, Metelmann, Hans-Robert, Schumann, Hauke, Tenenhaus, Mayer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26018577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0742-x
_version_ 1782373876395671552
author Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver
Fimmers, Rolf
Metelmann, Hans-Robert
Schumann, Hauke
Tenenhaus, Mayer
author_facet Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver
Fimmers, Rolf
Metelmann, Hans-Robert
Schumann, Hauke
Tenenhaus, Mayer
author_sort Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In many clinical trials on cutaneous healing, wound closure is the primary endpoint and single most important outcome parameter, making precise assessment of this time point one of utmost importance. The assessment of wound closure can be performed either by subjective clinical inspection or with a variety of methodologies anticipated to provide more objective data. The aim of this study was to examine intra- and interrater variability of blinded photographic analysis of wound closure of human partial thickness wounds, as well as the reliability of remote photographic analysis of wounds with that of direct clinical assessment. METHODS: Two plastic surgeons, a dermatologist, and a maxillofacial surgeon constituted our rater panel. High-resolution images of patient wounds derived from two randomized controlled clinical trials (EU Clinical Trials Register numbers EudraCT 2009-017418-56 (registered 12 January 2010) and EudraCT 2010-019945-24 (registered 13 July 2010)) were individually assessed by the blinded, experienced study raters. The reliability of photographic image analysis was tested using intraclass and interclass correlation. The validity of photographic image analysis was correlated with clinical assessments of documented time to heal from the study centers’ files. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the mean intraclass correlation coefficient of all four examiners was excellent (r = 0.79; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.61, 1.00)). The interrater correlation coefficient was good (r = 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.57, 1.00)) and therefore acceptable. The agreement between remote visual assessment and clinical assessment at the time of healing was good (r = 0.64; 95 % CI, 0.52, 0.76)) with an overall difference of about 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: Remote photographic analysis of cutaneous wounds is a feasible instrument in clinical open-label studies to evaluate time to wound closure. We found that it was a reliable method of measuring wound closure that correlated satisfactorily with clinical judgment, bolstering the potential relevance in the current era of evolving application and dependency in the field of telemedicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT numbers 2009-017418-56 (date of registration: 12 January 2010) and 2010-019945-24 (date of registration: 13 July 2010).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4449561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44495612015-05-31 Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver Fimmers, Rolf Metelmann, Hans-Robert Schumann, Hauke Tenenhaus, Mayer Trials Research BACKGROUND: In many clinical trials on cutaneous healing, wound closure is the primary endpoint and single most important outcome parameter, making precise assessment of this time point one of utmost importance. The assessment of wound closure can be performed either by subjective clinical inspection or with a variety of methodologies anticipated to provide more objective data. The aim of this study was to examine intra- and interrater variability of blinded photographic analysis of wound closure of human partial thickness wounds, as well as the reliability of remote photographic analysis of wounds with that of direct clinical assessment. METHODS: Two plastic surgeons, a dermatologist, and a maxillofacial surgeon constituted our rater panel. High-resolution images of patient wounds derived from two randomized controlled clinical trials (EU Clinical Trials Register numbers EudraCT 2009-017418-56 (registered 12 January 2010) and EudraCT 2010-019945-24 (registered 13 July 2010)) were individually assessed by the blinded, experienced study raters. The reliability of photographic image analysis was tested using intraclass and interclass correlation. The validity of photographic image analysis was correlated with clinical assessments of documented time to heal from the study centers’ files. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the mean intraclass correlation coefficient of all four examiners was excellent (r = 0.79; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.61, 1.00)). The interrater correlation coefficient was good (r = 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.57, 1.00)) and therefore acceptable. The agreement between remote visual assessment and clinical assessment at the time of healing was good (r = 0.64; 95 % CI, 0.52, 0.76)) with an overall difference of about 1 day. CONCLUSIONS: Remote photographic analysis of cutaneous wounds is a feasible instrument in clinical open-label studies to evaluate time to wound closure. We found that it was a reliable method of measuring wound closure that correlated satisfactorily with clinical judgment, bolstering the potential relevance in the current era of evolving application and dependency in the field of telemedicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT numbers 2009-017418-56 (date of registration: 12 January 2010) and 2010-019945-24 (date of registration: 13 July 2010). BioMed Central 2015-05-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4449561/ /pubmed/26018577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0742-x Text en © Rennekampff et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Rennekampff, Hans-Oliver
Fimmers, Rolf
Metelmann, Hans-Robert
Schumann, Hauke
Tenenhaus, Mayer
Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title_full Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title_fullStr Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title_full_unstemmed Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title_short Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
title_sort reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4449561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26018577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0742-x
work_keys_str_mv AT rennekampffhansoliver reliabilityofphotographicanalysisofwoundepithelializationassessedinhumanskingraftdonorsitesandepidermolysisbullosawounds
AT fimmersrolf reliabilityofphotographicanalysisofwoundepithelializationassessedinhumanskingraftdonorsitesandepidermolysisbullosawounds
AT metelmannhansrobert reliabilityofphotographicanalysisofwoundepithelializationassessedinhumanskingraftdonorsitesandepidermolysisbullosawounds
AT schumannhauke reliabilityofphotographicanalysisofwoundepithelializationassessedinhumanskingraftdonorsitesandepidermolysisbullosawounds
AT tenenhausmayer reliabilityofphotographicanalysisofwoundepithelializationassessedinhumanskingraftdonorsitesandepidermolysisbullosawounds