ArticleInternational wound journal2022
SfM-3DULC: Reliability of a new 3D wound measurement procedure and its accuracy in projected area.
Article in International wound journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D Measurement of Chronic Wounds in Routine Care: A Review with Practical Guidance for Smartphone Photogrammetry.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Accurate AI-Based Characterization of Wound Size and Tissue Composition in Hard-to-Heal Wounds.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- SfM-3DULC: Reliability of a new 3D wound measurement procedure and its accuracy in projected area.International wound journal · 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
Three-dimensional (3D) wound measurement lacks a gold standard to test accuracy. It is useful to develop procedures to scan wounds and reconstruct their 3D model with low-cost techniques. We present a new procedure (Structure from Motion [SfM]-3DULC) that uses photographs for measuring nine wound variables. We also propose a new variant of ImageJ in which an orthophoto is used to measure the projected area (Ortho-ImageJ). In addition, we compare the wound measurements made by dermatologists and non-experts. A group of five experts in dermatology and five non-specialists measured 33 leg wounds five times per procedure. Intra-rater and inter-rater reliability scores of SfM-3DULC were evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC 2,1). The accuracy of the two new procedures (SfM-3DULC and Ortho-ImageJ) in the measurement of projected area was assessed by comparing their values with those obtained using ImageJ, with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test (α = 0.05). This test was also used to analyse the differences between the measurements made by dermatologists and non-experts. All the variables measured by dermatologists using SfM-3DULC showed excellent scores of intra-rater reliability (ICC > 0.99) and inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.98). No significant differences between the three procedures were found when comparing their projected area values. Significant differences between the measurements of dermatologists and non-experts were found in most of the variables: circularity coefficient, perimeter, projected area, surface area, and reference surface area. The wound measurement procedure SfM-3DULC has an excellent reliability, is accurate for the measurement of projected area, and can be used by dermatologists for wound monitoring in everyday clinical practice.
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.