K M Lagan1, A E Dusoir, S M McDonough, G D Baxter. 1. Rehabilitation Sciences Research Group, School of Health Sciences, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Northern Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate two methods of wound measurement (planimetry and digitizing) performed on two routinely used techniques of clinical wound assessment, tracings taken directly from a patient's wound (raw tracing) and from photographs of the wound (photographic tracing). DESIGN: We examined the level of repeatability and thus reliability of these methods, and determined if absolute measured wound size differed between the combinations of method and assessment procedures. PATIENTS: Seven patients (4 women, 3 men; mean age +/- standard error of the mean = 63.1+/-5.0yrs) with a total of 11 wounds. SETTING: Patients attended a podiatry outpatient department on two separate days for raw and photographic tracing of their wounds. For both of these trace types, a series of repeated recordings were conducted by a single investigator using planimetry and digitizing measurement methods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Independent statistical analyses (analysis of variance, p < .05) were conducted on logged coefficients of variation and logged means data to investigate for repeatability and for size differences, respectively. RESULTS: Planimetry produced a significantly larger degree of variability (thus less repeatability) than digitizing (p = .02) and also produced smaller readings (p = .00001). Averaging over methods also indicated that photographic tracings produced smaller readings than raw tracings (p = .019). CONCLUSION: For the wound sizes and shapes examined, tracings taken directly from the patients were found to be an inexpensive clinical and research assessment tool on which digitizing was conducted with a higher level of repeatability than planimetry. Further research is needed to determine if the current findings apply to a wider population within wound management clinics.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate two methods of wound measurement (planimetry and digitizing) performed on two routinely used techniques of clinical wound assessment, tracings taken directly from a patient's wound (raw tracing) and from photographs of the wound (photographic tracing). DESIGN: We examined the level of repeatability and thus reliability of these methods, and determined if absolute measured wound size differed between the combinations of method and assessment procedures. PATIENTS: Seven patients (4 women, 3 men; mean age +/- standard error of the mean = 63.1+/-5.0yrs) with a total of 11 wounds. SETTING:Patients attended a podiatry outpatient department on two separate days for raw and photographic tracing of their wounds. For both of these trace types, a series of repeated recordings were conducted by a single investigator using planimetry and digitizing measurement methods. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Independent statistical analyses (analysis of variance, p < .05) were conducted on logged coefficients of variation and logged means data to investigate for repeatability and for size differences, respectively. RESULTS: Planimetry produced a significantly larger degree of variability (thus less repeatability) than digitizing (p = .02) and also produced smaller readings (p = .00001). Averaging over methods also indicated that photographic tracings produced smaller readings than raw tracings (p = .019). CONCLUSION: For the wound sizes and shapes examined, tracings taken directly from the patients were found to be an inexpensive clinical and research assessment tool on which digitizing was conducted with a higher level of repeatability than planimetry. Further research is needed to determine if the current findings apply to a wider population within wound management clinics.
Authors: Susan S Thomason; Stephen L Luther; Gail M Powell-Cope; Jeffrey J Harrow; Polly Palacios Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 1.985