The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A New Quantitative Scale for Clinical Scar Assessment
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Scar–free healing: from embryonic mechanisms to adult therapeutic intervention
Ferguson, M. W. J., & O'Kane, S. (2004) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1475 · Cited by 812
Self-citationBayat, A., McGrouther, D. A., & Ferguson, M. W. J. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7380.88 · Cited by 608
Self-citation
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.