Reliability and Accuracy of Techniques for Surface Area Measurements of Wounds and Scars

Abstract

The applicability of simple methods to measure the size of pathological skin lesions for management and research has been poorly studied to date. The interobserver reliability and accuracy (validity) was established for planimetry by photography and planimetry by tracing on a transparent sheet in this study. Drawings of 25, 50, and 75 cm ² were created on 3 locations with increasing curvature (back, thigh, and forearm) in 20 healthy volunteers. Three investigators evaluated the drawings by both planimetry techniques. Both techniques showed a good reliability (r ≥ 0.82, intraclass correlation) for 25 cm ² areas. Planimetry by photography was more reliable than planimetry by tracings for the 50 -and 75-cm ² areas and was more accurate than planimetry by tracing for all areas except for the area with the greatest curvature, the forearm. The study permits the conclusion that planimetry by photography is more suitable for surface area measurements than planimetry by tracing except for extremely curved body parts, where it is likely that effects of distortion supervene.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Marks R, Barton S, Shuttleworth D, et al. Assessment of disease progress in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol 1989;125:235-240.

2. Streiner D, Norman G. Validity. In: Streiner D, Norman G, editors. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 144-162.

3. Streiner D, Norman G. Reliability. In: Streiner D, Norman G, editors. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. p. 104-127.

4. Shrout P, Fleiss J. Intraclass correlation: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86:420-428.

5. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales. A practical guide to their development and use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995.

6. Sussman G, Harvey R, Schocket A. Evaluation of skin test response using two techniques of measurement. Ann Allergy 1982;48:75-77.

7. Kantor J, Margolis D. Efficacy and prognostic value of simple wound measurements. Arch Dermatol 1998;134:1571-1574.

8. Cutler N, George R, Seifert R, et al. Comparison of quantitative methodologies to define chronic pressure ulcer measurements. Decubitus 1993;6:22-30.

9. Johnson M, Miller R. Measuring healing in leg ulcers: practice considerations. Appl Nurs Res 1996;9:204-208.

10.

10. Altman D. Relation between two continuous variables. In: Altman D, editor. Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall; 1996. p. 277-324.