Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A New Quantitative Scale for Clinical Scar Assessment

Beausang, E., Floyd, H., Dunn, K. W., Orton, C. I., Ferguson, M. W. J.·1998·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

Wound healing in adult human skin results in varying degrees of scar formation, ranging clinically from fine asymptomatic scars to problematic hypertrophic and keloid scars, which may limit function and restrict further growth. At present, no good objective method of clinically assessing scars exists, which is problematic for the evaluation of scar prevention or treatment regimens. Similarly lacking are histologic correlates of what we consider good and bad clinical scars. The objective of this study was to quantitatively assess human scarring (1) clinically, by developing a comprehensive rating scale, (2) photographically, using an image capture system and a scar assessment panel, and (3) by histologic analysis following scar excision. We assessed 69 scars, with a wide clinical range of severity, in patients who were undergoing surgery, for whatever reason, that involved removal of an old scar. Preoperatively, patients had their scars assessed, clinically using our newly developed scale and photographically using a computerized image capture system. These photographs were then sent to a panel for assessment using similar criteria to those used clinically. Assessment of scars from photographs correlated well with the clinical scar evaluation, indicating its potential utility in multicenter scar prevention/treatment trials. Following excision, scars were processed and analyzed for histology. We also found a strong correlation between the macroscopic and microscopic appearance of scars, particularly between the clinical appearance and histologic scores of features in the epidermis and papillary dermis. This suggests that our clinical scale is a sensitive instrument in scar assessment, allowing validated quantification of the severity of a wide range of scars.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00006534-199811000-00022

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Beausang, E., Floyd, H., Dunn, K. W., Orton, C. I., & Ferguson, M. W. J.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
1998-11
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
1954-1961
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1977093038
Cited by
429
References
0
FWCI
3.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A New Quantitative Scale for Clinical Scar Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00006534-199811000-00022
The paper
Beausang, E., Floyd, H., Dunn, K. W., Orton, C. I., & Ferguson, M. W. J. (1998). A New Quantitative Scale for Clinical Scar Assessment. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199811000-00022

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.