Cited by 45Dermatologic Treatments and ResearchOptical Imaging and Spectroscopy TechniquesSpectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research

Non-invasive evaluation of therapeutic response in keloid scar using diffuse reflectance spectroscopy

Open access
Hsu, Chao-Kai, Tzeng, Shih-Yu, Yang, Chao-Chun, Lee, Julia Yu-Yun, Huang, Lynn Ling-Huei, Chen, Wan-Rung, Hughes, Michael, Chen, Yu-Wen +2 more·2015·Biomedical Optics Express

Abstract

The pathogenesis and ideal treatment of keloid are still largely unknown, and it is essential to develop an objective assessment of keloid severity to evaluate the therapeutic response. We previously reported that our diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) system could assist clinicians in understanding the functional and structural condition of keloid scars. The purpose of this study was to understand clinical applicability of our DRS system on evaluating the scar severity and therapeutic response of keloid. We analyzed 228 spectral data from 71 subjects with keloid scars. The scars were classified into mild (0-3), moderate (4-7) and severe (8-11) according to the Vancouver scar scale. We found that as the severity of the scar increased, collagen concentration and water content increased, and the reduced scattering coefficient at 800 nm and oxygen saturation (SaO2) decreased. Using the DRS system, we found that collagen bundles aligned in a specific direction in keloid scars, but not in normal scars. Water content and SaO2 may be utilized as reliable parameters for evaluating the therapeutic response of keloid. In conclusion, the results obtained here suggest that the DRS has potential as an objective technique with which to evaluate keloid scar severity. In addition, it may be useful as a tool with which to track longitudinal response of scars in response to various therapeutic interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1364/boe.6.000390

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 45

Authors
Hsu, C.-K., Tzeng, S.-Y., Yang, C.-C., Lee, J. Y.-Y., Huang, L. L.-H., Chen, W.-R., Hughes, M., Chen, Y.-W., Liao, Y.-K., & Tseng, S.-H.
Affiliations
  • National Cheng Kung University Hospital (TW)
  • National Cheng Kung University (TW)
Venue
Biomedical Optics Express
Published
2015-01-08
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
390
ISSN
2156-7085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013269241
Cited by
45
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7
FWCI
5.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biomedical Optics Express (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Council Taiwan (NSC) (NSC-102-2221-E-006-248-MY2, NSC-102-2321-B-006-026)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Optical Imaging and Spectroscopy Techniques
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Spectroscopy Techniques in Biomedical and Chemical Research
Keywords
keloids, diffuse reflectance spectroscopy, treatment response assessment, collagen fiber alignment, moisture content, oxygen saturation, reduced scattering coefficient, Vancouver Scar Scale, non-invasive optical imaging

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