ArticleInternational wound journal2019
Phantom testing of the sensitivity and precision of a sub-epidermal moisture scanner.
Article in International wound journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydration-stable PVA-based skin phantom for wearable biopotential sensor evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Inter-device agreement of sacral subepidermal oedema measurement in healthy adults during prolonged 60° head of bed elevation.Nursing open · 2024Article
- The effect of prolonged 60° head of bed elevation on sacral subepidermal oedema in healthy adults: A quantitative prospective exploratory study.International wound journal · 2023Article
- A machine learning algorithm for early detection of heel deep tissue injuries based on a daily history of sub-epidermal moisture measurements.International wound journal · 2022Article
- Our contemporary understanding of the aetiology of pressure ulcers/pressure injuries.International wound journal · 2022Article
- Sensitivity and laboratory performances of a second-generation sub-epidermal moisture measurement device.International wound journal · 2020Article
- Phantom testing of the sensitivity and precision of a sub-epidermal moisture scanner.International wound journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The majority of pressure ulcers (PUs) including deep tissue injuries (DTIs) are preventable, and even reversible if detected in their early phase. One of the greatest barriers in PU prevention is that clinicians traditionally depended on subjective and qualitative techniques, particularly routine visual skin assessments that would only document existing, macroscopic PUs/DTIs, rather than preventing them or detecting them at their microscopic phase. At the early phase of cell damage, when a forming PU is still microscopic, there is a local increase in extracellular fluid contents within affected tissues, which is called sub-epidermal moisture (SEM). This new understanding has led to an emerging technology, a SEM Scanner (BBI LLC, Bruin Biometrics) that has been designed to effectively examine the health status of tissues, by measuring local changes in the biophysical SEM marker. In the present work, the SEM Scanner was tested under controlled laboratory conditions to experimentally determine its sensitivity and precision in identifying small (1 mL) water content changes in phantoms of the human heel and skull/face, which simulated common PU development scenarios. In both phantom configurations, the locally increased water contents resulted in consistent, statistically significant elevated SEM readings, which confirms that the SEM Scanner is able to detect fluid content changes that are as small as 1 mL. In agreement with a simplified theoretical (mathematical) SEM model, which was also developed here, changes in water contents had a consistent trend of effect on SEM delta values, which increased with each 1 mL increment in intra-tissue-substitute water contents.
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.