Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research

Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds

Authors: Hans-Oliver Rennekampff, Rolf Fimmers, Hans-Robert Metelmann, Hauke Schumann, Mayer Tenenhaus

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In many clinical trials on cutaneous healing, wound closure is the primary endpoint and single most important outcome parameter, making precise assessment of this time point one of utmost importance. The assessment of wound closure can be performed either by subjective clinical inspection or with a variety of methodologies anticipated to provide more objective data. The aim of this study was to examine intra- and interrater variability of blinded photographic analysis of wound closure of human partial thickness wounds, as well as the reliability of remote photographic analysis of wounds with that of direct clinical assessment.

Methods

Two plastic surgeons, a dermatologist, and a maxillofacial surgeon constituted our rater panel. High-resolution images of patient wounds derived from two randomized controlled clinical trials (EU Clinical Trials Register numbers EudraCT 2009-017418-56 (registered 12 January 2010) and EudraCT 2010-019945-24 (registered 13 July 2010)) were individually assessed by the blinded, experienced study raters. The reliability of photographic image analysis was tested using intraclass and interclass correlation. The validity of photographic image analysis was correlated with clinical assessments of documented time to heal from the study centers’ files.

Results

The results demonstrated that the mean intraclass correlation coefficient of all four examiners was excellent (r = 0.79; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 0.61, 1.00)). The interrater correlation coefficient was good (r = 0.67; 95 % CI, 0.57, 1.00)) and therefore acceptable. The agreement between remote visual assessment and clinical assessment at the time of healing was good (r = 0.64; 95 % CI, 0.52, 0.76)) with an overall difference of about 1 day.

Conclusions

Remote photographic analysis of cutaneous wounds is a feasible instrument in clinical open-label studies to evaluate time to wound closure. We found that it was a reliable method of measuring wound closure that correlated satisfactorily with clinical judgment, bolstering the potential relevance in the current era of evolving application and dependency in the field of telemedicine.

Trial registration

EU Clinical Trials Register EudraCT numbers 2009-017418-56 (date of registration: 12 January 2010) and 2010-019945-24 (date of registration: 13 July 2010).
Literature
1.
go back to reference Keast DH, Bowering CK, Evans AW, Mackean GL, Burrows C, D’Souza L. MEASURE: a proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(3 Suppl):S1–17.CrossRefPubMed Keast DH, Bowering CK, Evans AW, Mackean GL, Burrows C, D’Souza L. MEASURE: a proposed assessment framework for developing best practice recommendations for wound assessment. Wound Repair Regen. 2004;12(3 Suppl):S1–17.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Spence DW, Pomeranz B. Surgical wound healing monitored repeatedly in vivo using electrical resistance of the epidermis. Physiol Meas. 1996;17:57–69.CrossRefPubMed Spence DW, Pomeranz B. Surgical wound healing monitored repeatedly in vivo using electrical resistance of the epidermis. Physiol Meas. 1996;17:57–69.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Wilson DR, Maibach HI. Skin wound healing determined by water loss. J Surg Res. 1985;38:258–62.CrossRefPubMed Surinchak JS, Malinowski JA, Wilson DR, Maibach HI. Skin wound healing determined by water loss. J Surg Res. 1985;38:258–62.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Bloemen MCT, Boekema BKHL, Vlig M, van Zuijlen PPM, Middelkoop E. Digital image analysis versus clinical assessment of wound epithelialization: a validation study. Burns. 2012;38:501–5.CrossRefPubMed Bloemen MCT, Boekema BKHL, Vlig M, van Zuijlen PPM, Middelkoop E. Digital image analysis versus clinical assessment of wound epithelialization: a validation study. Burns. 2012;38:501–5.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Singer AJ, Wang Z, McClain SA, Pan Y. Optical coherence tomography: a noninvasive method to assess wound epithelialization. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:387–91.CrossRefPubMed Singer AJ, Wang Z, McClain SA, Pan Y. Optical coherence tomography: a noninvasive method to assess wound epithelialization. Acad Emerg Med. 2007;14:387–91.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Bloemen MCT, van Zuijlen PPM, Middelkoop E. Reliability of subjective wound assessment. Burns. 2011;37:566–71.CrossRefPubMed Bloemen MCT, van Zuijlen PPM, Middelkoop E. Reliability of subjective wound assessment. Burns. 2011;37:566–71.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.
8.
go back to reference Streiner DL, Norman GR. Reliability. In: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 167–210.CrossRef Streiner DL, Norman GR. Reliability. In: Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 167–210.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther. 1994;74:777–88.PubMed Eliasziw M, Young SL, Woodbury MG, Fryday-Field K. Statistical methodology for the concurrent assessment of interrater and intrarater reliability: using goniometric measurements as an example. Phys Ther. 1994;74:777–88.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085–7.CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085–7.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Scott-Conner CE, Meydrech E, Wheeler WE, Coil Jr JA. Quantitation of rate of wound closure and the prediction of death following major burns. Burns. 1988;14:373–8.CrossRef Scott-Conner CE, Meydrech E, Wheeler WE, Coil Jr JA. Quantitation of rate of wound closure and the prediction of death following major burns. Burns. 1988;14:373–8.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MWJ. Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:713–20.CrossRefPubMed Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MWJ. Current scales for assessing human scarring: a review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:713–20.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Singer AJ, Hirth D, McClain SA, Clark RAF. Lack of agreement between gross visual and histological assessment of burn reepithelialization in a porcine burn model. J Burn Care Res. 2012;33:286–90.CrossRefPubMed Singer AJ, Hirth D, McClain SA, Clark RAF. Lack of agreement between gross visual and histological assessment of burn reepithelialization in a porcine burn model. J Burn Care Res. 2012;33:286–90.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Reliability of photographic analysis of wound epithelialization assessed in human skin graft donor sites and epidermolysis bullosa wounds
Authors
Hans-Oliver Rennekampff
Rolf Fimmers
Hans-Robert Metelmann
Hauke Schumann
Mayer Tenenhaus
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0742-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

Trials 1/2015 Go to the issue