Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 532

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reliable and Feasible Evaluation of Linear Scars by the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale

van de Kar, Annekatrien L., Corion, Leonard U. M., Smeulders, Mark J. C., Draaijers, Lieneke J., van der Horst, Chantal M. A. M., van Zuijlen, Paul P. M.·2005·Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although scar evaluation tools are necessary for an evidence-based approach to scar management, there is as yet no generally accepted tool. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was developed recently and found to be a useful subjective evaluation tool for burn scars. The authors tested the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale on linear scars, the largest category of surgical scars. METHODS: One hundred linear surgical scars were assessed by three independent observers using the observer scale to evaluate vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area. The patients evaluated their scars simultaneously and 2 weeks later using the patient scale for the following parameters: pain, itching, color, stiffness, thickness, and relief. RESULTS: The internal consistency of the observer and patient scales was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.86 and 0.90, respectively). The reliability of the observer scale was good for the total score (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) and separate items (r > 0.86, p < 0.001) for three observers. Even a single observer evaluated scars reliably with respect to the total score (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and the items vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, and surface area (r > 0.70, p < 0.001). The patient's intraobserver reliability was good for the total score (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) and separate items (r > 0.89, p < 0.001). The coefficient of variation of the total score was 10.4 percent for the observer scale and 15.8 percent for the patient scale, indicating good agreement. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale is an appropriate subjective tool for the evaluation of linear 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 · 10.1097/01.prs.0000172982.43599.d6

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

Metadata

Authors
van de Kar, A. L., Corion, L. U. M., Smeulders, M. J. C., Draaijers, L. J., van der Horst, C. M. A. M., & van Zuijlen, P. P. M.
Venue
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Published
2005-08
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
514-522
ISSN
0032-1052 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1606096607
Cited by
532
References
0
FWCI
5.34
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

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.