TY - JOUR
T1 - Wound measurement: The comparative reliability of direct versus photographic tracings analysed by planimetry versus digitising techniques.
T2 - The comparative reliability of direct versus photographic tracings analyzed by planimetry versus digitizing techniques
AU - Lagan, Katie M.
AU - Dusoir, Anthony E.
AU - McDonough, Suzanne M.
AU - Baxter, G. David
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported by a Vice-Chancellor Scholarship from the University of Ulster, Jordanstown.
PY - 2000/10/12
Y1 - 2000/10/12
N2 - Lagan KM, Dusoir AE, McDonough SM, Baxter GD. Wound measurement: The comparative reliability of direct versus photographic tracings analyzed by planimetry versus digitizing techniques. Objective: To investigate two methods of wound measurement (planimetry and digitizing) performed on two routinely used techniques of clinical wound assessment, tracings taken directly from a patient's wound (raw tracing) and from photographs of the wound (photographic tracing). Design: We examined the level of repeatability and thus reliability of these methods, and determined if absolute measured wound size differed between the combinations of method and assessment procedures. Patients: Seven patients (4 women, 3 men; mean age ± standard error of the mean = 63.1 ± 5.0 yrs) with a total of 11 wounds. Setting: Patients attended a podiatry outpatient department on two separate days for raw and photographic tracing of their wounds. For both of these trace types, a series of repeated recordings were conducted by a single investigator using planimetry and digitizing measurement methods. Main Outcome Measure: Independent statistical analyses (analysis of variance, p < .05) were conducted on logged coefficients of variation and logged means data to investigate for repeatability and for size differences, respectively. Results: Planimetry produced a significantly larger degree of variability (thus less repeatability) than digitizing (p = .02) and also produced smaller readings (p = .00001). Averaging over methods also indicated that photographic tracings produced smaller readings than raw tracings (p = .019). Conclusion: For the wound sizes and shapes examined, tracings taken directly from the patients were found to be an inexpensive clinical and research assessment tool on which digitizing was conducted with a higher level of repeatability than planimetry. Further research is needed to determine if the current findings apply to a wider population within wound management clinics. (C) 2000 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
AB - Lagan KM, Dusoir AE, McDonough SM, Baxter GD. Wound measurement: The comparative reliability of direct versus photographic tracings analyzed by planimetry versus digitizing techniques. Objective: To investigate two methods of wound measurement (planimetry and digitizing) performed on two routinely used techniques of clinical wound assessment, tracings taken directly from a patient's wound (raw tracing) and from photographs of the wound (photographic tracing). Design: We examined the level of repeatability and thus reliability of these methods, and determined if absolute measured wound size differed between the combinations of method and assessment procedures. Patients: Seven patients (4 women, 3 men; mean age ± standard error of the mean = 63.1 ± 5.0 yrs) with a total of 11 wounds. Setting: Patients attended a podiatry outpatient department on two separate days for raw and photographic tracing of their wounds. For both of these trace types, a series of repeated recordings were conducted by a single investigator using planimetry and digitizing measurement methods. Main Outcome Measure: Independent statistical analyses (analysis of variance, p < .05) were conducted on logged coefficients of variation and logged means data to investigate for repeatability and for size differences, respectively. Results: Planimetry produced a significantly larger degree of variability (thus less repeatability) than digitizing (p = .02) and also produced smaller readings (p = .00001). Averaging over methods also indicated that photographic tracings produced smaller readings than raw tracings (p = .019). Conclusion: For the wound sizes and shapes examined, tracings taken directly from the patients were found to be an inexpensive clinical and research assessment tool on which digitizing was conducted with a higher level of repeatability than planimetry. Further research is needed to determine if the current findings apply to a wider population within wound management clinics. (C) 2000 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
KW - Planimetry
KW - Rehabilitation
KW - Reliability
KW - Wounds
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033867710&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1053/apmr.2000.6281
DO - 10.1053/apmr.2000.6281
M3 - Article
C2 - 10943763
AN - SCOPUS:0033867710
SN - 0003-9993
VL - 81
SP - 1110
EP - 1116
JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
IS - 8
ER -