London, United Kingdom From the Academic Burn and Microsurgery Group, Blizard Institute of Cell and Molecular Science.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012 Mar;129(3):648-656. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182402c51.
Keloid scars cause pain, itching, functional limitation, and disfigurement, leading to psychological distress. Progress in treatment regimens is hindered by the lack of a universally accepted outcome measure. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale is a tool for the assessment of scars, incorporating an assessment by both clinician and patient. This study evaluates its application to keloids and compares it to the widely used Vancouver Scar Scale, which is considered the standard mode of assessment for scars.
Three observers using the two scales assessed 34 patients with 41 keloid scars independently. Patients evaluated their own scars simultaneously using the patient component of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Internal consistency, interobserver reliability, and convergent validity were examined.
Both components of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale had high internal consistency (0.82 and 0.86 for patient and observer components, respectively); those rates were higher than the rate for the Vancouver Scar Scale (0.65). Interobserver reliability was "substantial" for the Vancouver Scar Scale (0.65) and "almost perfect" for the observer component of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (0.85). Convergent validity was very strong (0.83, p < 0.01), although the patient component did not correlate well with either of the observer scales. Patients rated their scars worse than the observer average for 83 percent of the scars, and were influenced by color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity (p < 0.05).
The findings support the use of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale as a reliable and valid method of assessing keloid scars in a clinical context.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, II.
瘢痕疙瘩会引起疼痛、瘙痒、功能受限和毁容,导致心理困扰。由于缺乏普遍接受的疗效评估指标,治疗方案的进展受到阻碍。患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表是一种评估瘢痕的工具,包括临床医生和患者的评估。本研究评估了其在瘢痕疙瘩中的应用,并将其与广泛使用的温哥华瘢痕量表进行比较,后者被认为是评估瘢痕的标准模式。
三位观察者使用这两种量表,独立评估了 34 名患者的 41 处瘢痕疙瘩。患者同时使用患者部分的患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表评估自己的瘢痕。评估了量表的内部一致性、观察者间信度和收敛效度。
患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表的两个分量表都具有较高的内部一致性(患者和观察者分量表分别为 0.82 和 0.86);这两个分数都高于温哥华瘢痕量表(0.65)。温哥华瘢痕量表的观察者间信度为“中等”(0.65),患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表观察者分量表的观察者间信度为“几乎完美”(0.85)。收敛效度很强(0.83,p < 0.01),尽管患者分量表与两个观察者量表都没有很好地相关。患者对 83%的瘢痕的评分比观察者平均评分更差,并且受到颜色、硬度、厚度和不规则性的影响(p < 0.05)。
研究结果支持在临床环境中使用患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表作为评估瘢痕疙瘩的可靠和有效的方法。
临床问题/证据水平:诊断,II 级。