Cited by 36Burn Injury Management and OutcomesDigital Imaging in MedicineDermatologic Treatments and Research

Photographic assessment of burn wounds: A simple strategy in a resource-poor setting

Open access
Kiser, Michelle, Beijer, Gustaf, Mjuweni, Stephen, Muyco, Arturo, Cairns, Bruce, Charles, Anthony·2013·Burns

Abstract

Objective To validate the use of photographic burn wound assessment in evaluation of burn size and wound characteristics.Methods Feasibility study of agreement between methods of measurement of burn size and characteristics, in patients admitted to the burn unit at Kamuzu Central Hospital (KCH), Malawi, over two months in 2011. Burn wounds were photographed and assessed clinically, concurrently, by an experienced clinician. Photographs reviewed by two blinded burn clinicians after 4-6 weeks. Correlation between clinical assessment and photographic evaluation was calculated using kappa score and Pearson's correlation coefficient.Results Thirty-nine patients were included in evaluation of TBSA, and fifty wounds assessed for their characteristics. Pearson's correlation coefficient for agreement of TBSA between clinical exam and photograph review by expert#1, and #2, was 0.96, 0.93 (p<0.001), respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficients comparing expert#1 and #2 to the gold standard were: proportion of full-thickness burn (0.88 and 0.81, p<0.001), and epithelialized superficial burn (0.89 and 0.55, p<0.001). Kappa scores were significant for wound evolution (expert#1 0.57, expert#2 0.64, p<0.001), and prognosis (expert#1 0.80, expert#2 0.80, p<0.001).Conclusions Burn assessment with digital photography is a valid and affordable alternative to direct clinical exam, alleviating access issues to burn care in developing countries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.burns.2012.04.003

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An important feature of most mHealth interventions was that interactions between participants usually took place on the basis of standardized information exchange protocols.

    “An important feature of most mHealth interventions was that interactions between participants usually took place on the basis of standardized information exchange protocols [36, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45–47, 49, 52, 54].”
  • Almost all included studies highlighted that mHealth interventions facilitate access to previously unavailable services.

    “In fact, almost all included studies highlighted this characteristic feature of mHealth interventions [20, 36–51].”
  • Participating patients or providers usually required only a few days of training on how to use the mobile technology and the consultation procedures.

    “Participating patients or providers usually required only a few days of training on how to use the mobile technology (such as the mobile phone and its application software) and the consultation procedures [41, 43, 46–48, 50, 55].”
  • In 12 included studies, mHealth interventions essentially consisted of mobile phone-based consultations between two healthcare providers, where a specialized provider could be reached by another provider, indirectly improving patient access to specialized care.

    “In 12 studies, mHealth interventions essentially consisted of mobile phone-based consultations between two healthcare providers, where a specialized provider could be reached by another provider, thus indirectly improving patient access to specialized care [36, 38–43, 45, 47–49, 52].”
  • Specialized providers found mHealth easier to use in the context of certain disease conditions (acne, herpes simplex, Kaposi's sarcoma, and flame burns in dermatology) than in others (scald burns, thickness wounds, and atopic dermatitis).

    “However, specialized providers found mHealth easier to use in the context of certain disease conditions, such as acne, herpes simplex, Kaposi’s sarcoma, and flame burns in dermatology, than in others (scald burns, thickness wounds, and atopic dermatitis) [36, 43] and easier for certain diagnostic and treatment tasks (sharing feedback with patients, continuous clinical follow-ups) than for others (”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kiser, M., Beijer, G., Mjuweni, S., Muyco, A., Cairns, B., & Charles, A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Kamuzu Central Hospital (MW)
Corresponding author
Charles, Anthony
Venue
Burns
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
155-161
ISSN
0305-4179 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128014575
Cited by
36
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 2
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Burns (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Burn Injury Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Digital Imaging in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
Keywords
burn wound assessment, digital photography, burn size estimation, total body surface area, third-degree burns, wound characteristics, burn prognosis, interobserver agreement, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Burns, Child, Child, Preschool, Developing Countries, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Malawi, Male, Photography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review