Cargando…

Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality

Measurements of scar quality are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of scar treatments and to monitor scars. A large number of scar scales and measurement devices have been developed, which makes instrument selection challenging. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the content (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Carrière, Michelle E., Kwa, Kelly A. A., de Haas, Louise E. M., Pijpe, Anouk, Tyack, Zephanie, Ket, Johannes C. F., van Zuijlen, Paul P. M., de Vet, Henrica C. W., Mokkink, Lidwine B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6799398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31741815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002424
_version_ 1783460275775602688
author Carrière, Michelle E.
Kwa, Kelly A. A.
de Haas, Louise E. M.
Pijpe, Anouk
Tyack, Zephanie
Ket, Johannes C. F.
van Zuijlen, Paul P. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Mokkink, Lidwine B.
author_facet Carrière, Michelle E.
Kwa, Kelly A. A.
de Haas, Louise E. M.
Pijpe, Anouk
Tyack, Zephanie
Ket, Johannes C. F.
van Zuijlen, Paul P. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Mokkink, Lidwine B.
author_sort Carrière, Michelle E.
collection PubMed
description Measurements of scar quality are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of scar treatments and to monitor scars. A large number of scar scales and measurement devices have been developed, which makes instrument selection challenging. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the content (ie, included items) of all outcome measurement instruments that measure scar quality in different types of scars (burn, surgical, keloid, and necrotizing fasciitis), and the frequency at which the instruments and included items are used. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase.com up to October 31, 2018. All original studies reporting on instruments that measured at least 1 characteristic of scar quality were included and the instrument’s content was extracted. RESULTS: We included 440 studies for data extraction. Included instruments (N = 909) were clinician-reported scales (41%), measurement devices (30%), patient-reported scales (26%), and combined clinician- and patient-reported scales (3%). The Observer scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, the Cutometer, the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and the modified Vancouver Scar Scale were the most often used instrument in each of these categories, respectively. The most frequent assessed items were thickness, vascularity, pigmentation, pliability, pain, and itch. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lay the foundation for our future research, which includes an international Delphi study among many scar experts, and an international focus group study among scar patients, aiming to elucidate how scar quality must be defined and measured from both professional and patient perspectives.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6799398
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67993982019-11-18 Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality Carrière, Michelle E. Kwa, Kelly A. A. de Haas, Louise E. M. Pijpe, Anouk Tyack, Zephanie Ket, Johannes C. F. van Zuijlen, Paul P. M. de Vet, Henrica C. W. Mokkink, Lidwine B. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Special Topic Measurements of scar quality are essential to evaluate the effectiveness of scar treatments and to monitor scars. A large number of scar scales and measurement devices have been developed, which makes instrument selection challenging. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the content (ie, included items) of all outcome measurement instruments that measure scar quality in different types of scars (burn, surgical, keloid, and necrotizing fasciitis), and the frequency at which the instruments and included items are used. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and Embase.com up to October 31, 2018. All original studies reporting on instruments that measured at least 1 characteristic of scar quality were included and the instrument’s content was extracted. RESULTS: We included 440 studies for data extraction. Included instruments (N = 909) were clinician-reported scales (41%), measurement devices (30%), patient-reported scales (26%), and combined clinician- and patient-reported scales (3%). The Observer scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, the Cutometer, the Patient Scale of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and the modified Vancouver Scar Scale were the most often used instrument in each of these categories, respectively. The most frequent assessed items were thickness, vascularity, pigmentation, pliability, pain, and itch. CONCLUSION: The results of this study lay the foundation for our future research, which includes an international Delphi study among many scar experts, and an international focus group study among scar patients, aiming to elucidate how scar quality must be defined and measured from both professional and patient perspectives. Wolters Kluwer Health 2019-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6799398/ /pubmed/31741815 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002424 Text en Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) , where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.
spellingShingle Special Topic
Carrière, Michelle E.
Kwa, Kelly A. A.
de Haas, Louise E. M.
Pijpe, Anouk
Tyack, Zephanie
Ket, Johannes C. F.
van Zuijlen, Paul P. M.
de Vet, Henrica C. W.
Mokkink, Lidwine B.
Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title_full Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title_fullStr Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title_short Systematic Review on the Content of Outcome Measurement Instruments on Scar Quality
title_sort systematic review on the content of outcome measurement instruments on scar quality
topic Special Topic
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6799398/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31741815
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002424
work_keys_str_mv AT carrieremichellee systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT kwakellyaa systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT dehaaslouiseem systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT pijpeanouk systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT tyackzephanie systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT ketjohannescf systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT vanzuijlenpaulpm systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT devethenricacw systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality
AT mokkinklidwineb systematicreviewonthecontentofoutcomemeasurementinstrumentsonscarquality