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
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.
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
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Cited by
van der Wal, M., Bloemen, M., Verhaegen, P., Tuinebreijer, W., de Vet, H., van Zuijlen, P., & Middelkoop, E. (2013) · Journal of Burn Care & Research · doi:10.1097/bcr.0b013e318264bf7d · Cited by 96
Self-citationEffect of dermal thickness on scars in women with type III-IV fitzpatrick skin
Ince, B., Dadaci, M., Oltulu, P., Altuntas, Z., & Bilgen, F. (2015) · Aesthetic Plastic Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00266-015-0466-z · Cited by 23
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.