van der Wal M B A, Verhaegen P D H M, Middelkoop E, van Zuijlen P P M
Association of Dutch Burn Centres, Beverwijk, The Netherlands.
J Burn Care Res. 2012 Mar-Apr;33(2):e79-87. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e318239f5dd.
Standardized validated evaluation instruments are mandatory to increase the level of evidence in scar management. Scar assessment scales are potentially suitable for this purpose, but the most appropriate scale still needs to be determined. This review will elaborate on several clinically relevant scar features and critically discuss the currently available scar scales in terms of basic clinimetric requirements. Many current scales can produce reliable measurements but seem to require multiple observers to obtain these results reliably, which limits their feasibility in clinical practice. The validation process of scar scales is hindered by the lack of a "gold standard" in subjective scar assessment or other reliable objective instruments which are necessary for a good comparison. The authors conclude that there are scar scales available that can reliably measure scar quality. However, further research may lead to improvement of their clinimetric properties and enhance the level of evidence in scar research worldwide.
标准化的有效评估工具对于提高瘢痕管理的证据水平至关重要。瘢痕评估量表可能适用于此目的，但仍需确定最合适的量表。本综述将详细阐述几个与临床相关的瘢痕特征，并根据基本的临床测量要求对目前可用的瘢痕量表进行批判性讨论。许多当前的量表可以产生可靠的测量结果，但似乎需要多个观察者才能可靠地获得这些结果，这限制了它们在临床实践中的可行性。主观瘢痕评估缺乏“金标准”或其他用于良好比较所需的可靠客观工具，阻碍了瘢痕量表的验证过程。作者得出结论，有可用的瘢痕量表可以可靠地测量瘢痕质量。然而，进一步的研究可能会改善它们的临床测量特性，并提高全球瘢痕研究的证据水平。
