Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,275

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: A Reliable and Feasible Tool for Scar Evaluation

Draaijers, Lieneke J., Tempelman, Fenike R. H., Botman, Yvonne A. M., Tuinebreijer, Wim E., Middelkoop, Esther, Kreis, Robert W., van Zuijlen, Paul P. M.·2004·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

At present, various scar assessment scales are available, but not one has been shown to be reliable, consistent, feasible, and valid at the same time. Furthermore, the existing scar assessment scales appear to attach little weight to the opinion of the patient. The newly developed Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale consists of two numeric scales: the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (patient scale) and the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (observer scale). The patient and observer scales have to be completed by the patient and the observer, respectively. The patient scale's consistency and the observer scale's consistency, reliability, and feasibility were tested. For the Vancouver Scar Scale, which is the most frequently used scar assessment scale at present, the same statistical measurements were examined and the results of the observer scale and the Vancouver scale were compared. The concurrent validity of the observer scale was tested with a correlation to the Vancouver scale. Furthermore, the authors examined which specific characteristics significantly influence the general opinion of the patient and the observers on the scar areas. Four independent observers have each used the observer scale and the Vancouver scale to assess 49 burn scar areas of 3 x 3 cm belonging to 20 different patients. Subsequently, the patients completed the patient scale for their scar areas. The (internal) consistency of both the patient and the observer scales was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.76 and 0.69, respectively), whereas the consistency of the Vancouver scale appeared not to be acceptable (alpha, 0.49). The reliability of the observer scale completed by a single observer was acceptable (r = 0.73). The reliability of the Vancouver scale completed by a single observer was lower (r = 0.69). The observer scale showed better agreement than the Vancouver scale because the coefficient of variation was lower (18 percent and 22 percent, respectively). The concurrent validity of the observer scale in relation to the Vancouver scale is high (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). Linear regression of the general opinions on scars of the observer and the patient showed that the observer's opinion is influenced by vascularization, thickness, pigmentation, and relief, whereas the patient's opinion is mainly influenced by itching and the thickness of the scar. Such an impact of itching and thickness of the scar on the patient's opinion is an important and novel finding. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale offers a suitable, reliable, and complete scar evaluation tool.

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 · 10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,275

Metadata

Authors
Draaijers, L. J., Tempelman, F. R. H., Botman, Y. A. M., Tuinebreijer, W. E., Middelkoop, E., Kreis, R. W., & van Zuijlen, P. P. M.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2004-06
Volume
113
Issue
7
Pages
1960-1965
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2003042721
Cited by
1,275
References
1
FWCI
4.62
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: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: A Reliable and Feasible Tool for Scar Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56
The paper
Draaijers, L. J., Tempelman, F. R. H., Botman, Y. A. M., Tuinebreijer, W. E., Middelkoop, E., Kreis, R. W., & van Zuijlen, P. P. M. (2004). The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale: A Reliable and Feasible Tool for Scar Evaluation. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56

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.