ArticleInternational wound journal2010
Comparative analysis of two methods for wound bed area measurement.
Article in International wound journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Hyperspectral imaging in wound care: A systematic review.International wound journal · 2020Pooled it
- Methods to assess area and volume of wounds - a systematic review.International wound journal · 2016Pooled it
- 3D Measurement of Chronic Wounds in Routine Care: A Review with Practical Guidance for Smartphone Photogrammetry.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- A time motion study of manual versus artificial intelligence methods for wound assessment.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wound bed area measurements are considered to be an essential part of the wound assessment process. Wound care professionals should be aware of the reliability and validity of the techniques they use. The purpose of this study was to assess whether wound care professionals are able to make as accurate and reproducible a measurement of the wound bed area using two methods for area measurement. Five wound care professionals independently assessed 2285 digital wound images for the wound bed area. Each image was measured in random order, three times, and in four angles by providing the rotated versions of each image (0°, 90°, 180° and 270°). Two techniques were compared: free hand drawing and closed polygon (CP) graph algorithm. Comparison of the two techniques showed differences that are, in our opinion, not acceptable in clinical practice when these techniques are used interchangeably and/or the measurements are carried out by different observers. Variations observed between wounds and observers seem related to the difference in perception of the wound bed margin. Our results indicate that repetition of CP graph area measurement results in the lowest difference in repetitive measurements. Study limitations are related to an incomplete consensus on definitions of wound, wound bed, wound edge and wound border. The development of an ontology related to wound images could aid to reduce these ambiguities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.