...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Burns: Including Thermal Injury >A modified Vancouver Scar Scale linked with TBSA (mVSS-TBSA): Inter-rater reliability of an innovative burn scar assessment method
【24h】

A modified Vancouver Scar Scale linked with TBSA (mVSS-TBSA): Inter-rater reliability of an innovative burn scar assessment method

机译：与TBSA（mVSS-TBSA）关联的改进的温哥华疤痕量表：一种创新的烧伤疤痕评估方法的评分间可靠性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background: Current scar assessment methods do not capture variation in scar outcome across the burn scar surface area. A new method (mVSS-TBSA) using a modified Vancouver Scar Scale (mVSS) linked with %TBSA was devised and inter-rater reliability was assessed. Method: Three raters performed scar assessments on thirty patients with burn scars using the mVSS-TBSA. Scoring on pigmentation, vascularity, pliability and height was undertaken for the 'best' and 'worst' areas of each scar. Raters allocated the total body surface area of the scar (%TBSA) to three mVSS categories (5, 5-10, 10). Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and weighted kappa statistic (kw) were used to assess inter-rater reliability. The data were also analysed for clinically relevant misclassifications between pairs of raters. Results: Total mVSS scores showed 'fair to good' agreement (ICC 0.65-0.73) in the 'best' area of the scar while there was 'excellent' agreement in the 'worst' scar area (ICC 0.85-0.88). The kw of the individual mVSS components ranged from 0.44 to 0.84 and 0.02 to 0.86 for 'best' and 'worst' scar areas, respectively. Determination of scar %TBSA had 'excellent' reliability (ICC 0.91-0.96). Allocation of scar %TBSA to severity category 5 mVSS demonstrated 'good to excellent' reliability (ICC 0.63-0.80) and 'fair to good' reliability (ICC 0.42-0.74) for 5-10 mVSS category. However, misclassifications were observed for the total mVSS score in the 'worst' scar area and the allocation of scar %TBSA in the 5 mVSS category. Conclusion: Inter-rater reliability of mVSS scores depends on the severity of the scar area being assessed. The mVSS-TBSA method of allocation of scar %TBSA to two broad mVSS categories, namely 5 and ≥5 mVSS, has 'good to excellent' reliability. The mVSS-TBSA has demonstrated utility for both clinical and research purposes; however, there is potential to misclassify scar outcome in some cases.
机译：背景：目前的疤痕评估方法不能捕获整个烧伤疤痕表面的疤痕结局变化。设计了一种新方法（mVSS-TBSA），该方法使用了与％TBSA关联的改进的温哥华疤痕量表（mVSS），并评估了评估者之间的可靠性。方法：三名评估者使用mVSS-TBSA对30名烧伤疤痕患者进行了疤痕评估。对每条疤痕的“最佳”和“最差”区域进行色素沉着，血管分布，柔韧性和身高评分。评分者将疤痕的总体表面积（％TBSA）分为三个mVSS类别（<5、5-10，> 10）。类内相关系数（ICC）和加权kappa统计量（kw）用于评估评分者间的可靠性。还对数据进行了分析，以评估评估者对之间的临床相关错误分类。结果：总mVSS评分在疤痕的“最佳”区域显示出“良好至良好”的一致性（ICC 0.65-0.73），而在“最糟糕的”疤痕区域（ICC达到0.88）具有“优异”的一致性。对于“最佳”和“最差”疤痕区域，单个mVSS组件的kw分别为0.44至0.84和0.02至0.86。疤痕％TBSA的测定具有“极好的”可靠性（ICC 0.91-0.96）。对于严重程度<5 mVSS的疤痕％TBSA分配，对于5-10 mVSS类别显示“好到好”可靠性（ICC 0.63-0.80）和“中到好”可靠性（ICC 0.42-0.74）。但是，在“最坏”疤痕区域的总mVSS得分以及在<5 mVSS类别的疤痕％TBSA的分配中观察到了错误分类。结论：mVSS评分的评分者间可靠性取决于所评估疤痕区域的严重程度。将疤痕％TBSA分配到两个广泛的mVSS类别（即<5和≥5mVSS）的mVSS-TBSA方法具有“良好至卓越”的可靠性。 mVSS-TBSA已证明可用于临床和研究目的。但是，在某些情况下，可能会误分类瘢痕结局。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号