A clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of 3D technology for scar surface area measurement.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of scars has become an important outcome of burn care. Objective scar assessment through scar surface area measurement enables quantification of scar formation and evaluation of treatment efficacy. 3D technology has proven valid and reliable but often remains cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. 3D technology with depth sensors on mobile devices has become available and might surpass these limitations. This study provides a clinimetric assessment of the validity and reliability of a 3D system with a depth sensor for scar surface area measurement. METHODS: A technology involving a depth sensor mounted on a mobile device was used. Images and analyses were made with a custom-made software application. A standardized one-keyframe image capturing procedure was followed. To assess validity, stickers with predefined dimensions (8.01 cm2 - 77.70 cm2) were imaged in a single observer setting on various body parts of healthy volunteers. To assess reliability, hypertrophic scars, keloids, and normotrophic scars were imaged and rated by two observers independently. Data are expressed as mean (+/-SD), Coefficient of Variation (CV), Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and Limits of Agreements (LoA). RESULTS: Eighty stickers placed on 20 healthy volunteers showed validity with CV between 0.62%- 1.67% for observer A and 0.75%- 1.19% for observer B. For the reliability study, 69 scars on 36 patients were included. Mean scar surface area ranged from 0.83 cm2 to 155.59 cm2. Mean scar surface area measurement was 13.83 cm2 (SD 23.06) for observer A and 13.59 cm2 (SD 23.31) for observer B. Adjusted interobserver CV for trained observers is estimated as 5.59%, with corresponding LoA = 0 ± 0.15 x mean surface area. Interobserver ICCs were 0.99-1.00. CONCLUSION: This 3D technology with a depth sensor for measuring scar surface area provides valid and reliable data and thereby surpasses expensive and time-consuming 3D cameras.

The FLIR ONE thermal imager for the assessment of burn wounds: Reliability and validity study.

BACKGROUND: Objective measurement tools may be of great value to provide early and reliable burn wound assessment. Thermal imaging is an easy, accessible and objective technique, which measures skin temperature as an indicator of tissue perfusion. These thermal images might be helpful in the assessment of burn wounds. However, before implementation of a novel measurement tool into clinical practice is considered, it is appropriate to test its clinimetric properties (i.e. reliability and validity). The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the recently introduced FLIR ONE thermal imager. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two observers obtained thermal images of burn wounds in adult patients at day 1-3, 4-7 and 8-10 after burn. Subsequently, temperature differences between the burn wound and healthy skin (ΔT) were calculated on an iPad mini containing the FLIR Tools app. To assess reliability, ΔT values of both observers were compared by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and measurement error parameters. To assess validity, the ΔT values of the first observer were compared to the registered healing time of the burn wounds, which was specified into three categories: (I) ≤14 days, (II) 15-21 days and (III) >21 days. The ability of the FLIR ONE to discriminate between healing ≤21 days and >21 days was evaluated by means of a receiver operating characteristic curve and an optimal ΔT cut-off value. RESULTS: Reliability: ICCs were 0.99 for each time point, indicating excellent reliability up to 10 days after burn. The standard error of measurement varied between 0.17-0.22°C. VALIDITY: the area under the curve was calculated at 0.69 (95% CI 0.54-0.84). A cut-off value of -1.15°C shows a moderate discrimination between burn wound healing ≤21 days and >21 days (46% sensitivity; 82% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our results show that the FLIR ONE thermal imager is highly reliable, but the moderate validity calls for additional research. However, the FLIR ONE is pre-eminently feasible, allowing easy and fast measurements in clinical burn practice.