Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36681617›Full record

ReviewJournal of tissue viability2023

Remote assessment of surgical site infection (SSI) using patient-taken wound images: Development and evaluation of a method for research and routine practice.

Rhiannon C Macefield, Jane M Blazeby, Barnaby C Reeves, Anni King, Jonathan Rees, Anne Pullyblank, Kerry Avery

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of tissue viability, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Rhiannon C MacefieldNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Population Health Sciences: Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK. Electronic address: r.macefield@bristol.ac.uk.
Jane M BlazebyNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Population Health Sciences: Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
Barnaby C ReevesBristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
Anni KingNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Population Health Sciences: Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
Jonathan ReesHepatobiliary Surgery, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, UK; Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.
Anne PullyblankDepartment of Surgery, North Bristol NHS Trust, UK.
Kerry AveryNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), Population Health Sciences: Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K025643/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimClinical assessment of wounds for surgical site infection (SSI) after hospital discharge is challenging and resource intensive. Remote assessment using digital images may be feasible and expedite SSI diagnosis. Acceptable and accurate methods for this process are needed. This study developed and evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and usability of a method for patients to capture standardised wound images for remote wound assessment to detect SSI. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe work was conducted in two phases. Phase I involved: i) a review of literature to identify key components of photography relevant to taking wound images, ii) development of wound photography instructions for patients and a secure process for transmission of images using electronic survey software and iii) pre-testing of the photography instructions and processing method with a sample of 16 patients using cognitive interviews and observations. Phase II involved a prospective cohort study of 89 patients to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and usability of the remote method following discharge from hospital after surgery. Quality of the images was assessed by three independent clinical reviewers.

resultsSome 21 key components for photographing wounds were identified from 11 documents. Of these, 16 were relevant to include in instructions for patients to photograph their wounds. Pre-testing and subsequent iterations improved understanding and ease of use of the instructions and the process for transmitting images. Fifty-two of 89 (58.4%) patients testing the method remotely took an image of their wound(s) and 46/52 (88.5%) successfully transmitted images. When it was possible to ascertain a reason for not taking/transmitting images, this was primarily health problems (n = 7) or lack of time/poor engagement with the study (n = 4) rather than problems relating to technology/competency (n = 2) or practical issues relating to the wound itself (n = 2). Eighty-seven (85.3%) of the 102 images received were evaluated to be of high quality and sufficient to remotely assess SSI by at least two independent reviewers.

conclusionA simple, standardised and acceptable method for patients to take and transmit wound images suitable for remote assessment of SSI has been developed and tested and is now available for use in routine clinical care and research.

Indexed as

Surgical Wound InfectionHumansProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesRemote follow-upSurgical site infectionTelemedicineWound assessmentWound images

Identifiers

PMID36681617
PMCPMC10322728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.