Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26250714›Full record

SynthesisInternational wound journal2016

Methods to assess area and volume of wounds - a systematic review.

Line Bisgaard Jørgensen, Jens A Sørensen, Gregor Be Jemec, Knud B Yderstraede

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International wound journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06919809 (Efficacy and Safety of X A-DERM™ Microsurfaced Acellular Dermal Matrix), which is not on this map. Cited by 51 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06919809 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy and Safety of X A-DERM™ Microsurfaced Acellular Dermal Matrix (mADM) for Enhancing Wound Healing Following Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS)

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcGuire InstituteRan2025 to 2026Enrolled16ConditionsWound Healing After MMS Surgery, BCC - Basal Cell Carcinoma, SCC - Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Melanoma In SituArmsA microsurfaced ADM (acellular dermal matrix)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Antimicrobial effects of compound Huangbai liquid onAmerican journal of translational research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Line Bisgaard JørgensenDepartment of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jens A SørensenDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Gregor Be JemecDepartment of Dermatology, Roskilde Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Knud B YderstraedeDepartment of Endocrinology, Odense University Hospital and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wound measurement is important in monitoring the healing process of chronic wounds and in evaluating the effect of treatment. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence from the literature on accuracy, agreement, reliability and feasibility of wound measurement techniques described since 1994. Studies were identified by searching the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Of the 12 013 studies identified, 43 were included in the review. A total of 30 papers evaluated techniques for measuring wound area and 13 evaluated techniques for measuring wound volume. The six approaches for measuring wound area were simple ruler method (10 papers), mathematical models (5 papers), manual planimetry (10 papers), digital planimetry (16 papers), stereophotogrammetry (2 papers) and digital imaging method (20 papers). Of these studies, 10 evaluated accuracy, 15 agreement, 17 reliability and 25 mentioned feasibility. The number of wounds examined in the studies was highly variable (n = 3-260). Studies evaluating techniques for measuring wound volume included between 1 and 50 wounds and evaluated accuracy (4 studies), agreement (6 studies), reliability (8 studies) and feasibility (12 studies). Digital planimetry and digital imaging were considered the most accurate and reliable methods for area measurement, particularly in larger and irregularly shaped wounds. None of the three-dimensional technologies have so far had a major impact, because of their low accuracy, high cost and complexity in handling the system set-up.

Indexed as

Wounds and InjuriesHumansReproducibility of ResultsWound HealingMeasurement accuracyMeasurement techniquesThree-dimensional wound measurementWound areaWound measurement

Identifiers

PMID26250714
PMCPMC7949796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.