ArticleInternational wound journal2023
Development and validation of a risk assessment scale for pathological scarring.
Article in International wound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk Factors for Scar Formation After Thyroidectomy and Advances in its Prevention and Treatment.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Review
- Development and validation of a risk assessment scale for pathological scarring.International wound journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To develop a risk assessment scale for pathological scarring and validate its psychometric properties. This was a methodological study. Researchers developed the scale based on a literature review, qualitative study and Delphi expert consultation. Subsequently, 409 patients participated in the study to test the psychometric properties of the scale. We evaluated construct validity, content validity, internal consistency reliability, and interrater reliability. The researchers developed a scale consisting of three dimensions and 12 items. Factor analysis extracted a total of four common factors that accounted for 62.22% of the total variance. The results revealed that the item-content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.67 to 1, while the scale-content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.82. Internal consistency reliability: Cronbach's α of the items ranged from 0.67 to 0.76, while Cronbach's α of the whole scale was 0.74. Interrater reliability: the Kappa number was 0.73. The final scale showed adequate construct validity, content validity, and reliability. It is appropriate for use in research and clinical practice settings to identify patients with a risk of pathological scarring. Further study is needed to confirm the scale's validity and reliability in other settings and populations.
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.