Evaluation of three different techniques for measuring wound area in diabetic foot ulcers: a reproducibility study.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Wound surface area can be measured with several assessment tools, including a manual planimetric method, ImageJ software and three-dimensional wound measurement (3DWM) methods. This study aimed to determine the advantages of each method as well as the concordance between them. METHOD: This reproducibility study included adult patient volunteers with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs). Wounds with ambiguous borders were excluded. All included wounds were sequentially assessed with each of the three measurement methods, and the time for each measurement was recorded with a chronometer. SPSS and MedCalc package software were used for all statistical analyses. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients with 20 DFUs took part in the study. According to the measurement method, the average wound area was 6.41cm2 by the manual planimetric method, 6.53cm2 by ImageJ and 6.32cm2 by 3DWM. Correlation analyses revealed correlation coefficients of 0.997 between the manual planimetric method and ImageJ, 0.929 between the manual planimetric method and 3DWM, and 0.929 between ImageJ and 3DWM. Bland-Altman analysis was used to determine whether these three measurement methods could be used interchangeably. There was no significant difference between the three measurement methods and, therefore, it was concluded that they could be used interchangeably. Wound area measurement times were 173.35±19.38 seconds by the manual planimetric method, 61.60±9.21 seconds by ImageJ and 36.90±6.91 seconds by the 3DWM method. CONCLUSION: The three measurement methods studied can be used interchangeably, as each method is highly concordant with the other two. The fastest method was 3DWM and the manual planimetric method was the slowest.