INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) has been investigated and used since 1993 for the assessment of burn wounds. Here we describe tests that validate use of the dedicated colour palette, derived in Part 1, for a standardised interpretation of LDI images for prediction of healing time (<14 days, 14-21 days or >21 days). We also describe clinical and technical factors to be taken into account during LDI imaging and during image interpretation. METHODS: (1) A cohort of images, selected at random, were assessed, according to strict rules of interpretation, by 6 clinicians against photographs of healing, for accuracy of healing time prediction and clinical usefulness using five-point scales. (2) All images were assessed technically in a similar way for accuracy and the accuracy was further studied by analysing the data by ordinal logistic regression to predict the dependence of burn injury healing time on demographic variables (age, sex, race, %TBSA, burn injury cause and site). (3) Where average LDI blood flow could be determined, regression analysis was used to assess the potential accuracy of the technique. RESULTS: (1) Clinical accuracy was found to be 93% and usefulness was 89%; (2) technical accuracy was found to be 96%; (3) regression analysis found that a potential accuracy of 90.9% could be achieved using LDI results alone, increasing to 92% if gender was also considered; no other parameters had an influence on healing time prediction. CONCLUSION: LDI can be used in a standardised way as a valid tool for improving on clinical assessment of burn wounds. This can enable earlier appropriate management. Copyright Â
INTRODUCTION: Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) has been investigated and used since 1993 for the assessment of burn wounds. Here we describe tests that validate use of the dedicated colour palette, derived in Part 1, for a standardised interpretation of LDI images for prediction of healing time (<14 days, 14-21 days or >21 days). We also describe clinical and technical factors to be taken into account during LDI imaging and during image interpretation. METHODS: (1) A cohort of images, selected at random, were assessed, according to strict rules of interpretation, by 6 clinicians against photographs of healing, for accuracy of healing time prediction and clinical usefulness using five-point scales. (2) All images were assessed technically in a similar way for accuracy and the accuracy was further studied by analysing the data by ordinal logistic regression to predict the dependence of burn injury healing time on demographic variables (age, sex, race, %TBSA, burn injury cause and site). (3) Where average LDI blood flow could be determined, regression analysis was used to assess the potential accuracy of the technique. RESULTS: (1) Clinical accuracy was found to be 93% and usefulness was 89%; (2) technical accuracy was found to be 96%; (3) regression analysis found that a potential accuracy of 90.9% could be achieved using LDI results alone, increasing to 92% if gender was also considered; no other parameters had an influence on healing time prediction. CONCLUSION: LDI can be used in a standardised way as a valid tool for improving on clinical assessment of burn wounds. This can enable earlier appropriate management. Copyright Â