烧伤瘢痕评估的主观工具：综合评价。
Subjective Tools for Burn Scar Assessment: An Integrative Review.
机构信息
At the Department of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil, Pollyana Thays Lameira da Costa, MSN, RN, is a Doctorate Student and Maria Elena Echevarría Guanilo, DNP, RN; Natália Gonçalves, PhD, RN; and Juliana Balbinot Reis Girondi, PhD, RN, are Professors. Adriana da Costa Gonçalves, PhD, is Professor of Physical Therapy, Centro Universitário Barão de Mauá de Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. Acknowledgment: This study was completed as part of a scholarship funded by the Higher Education Personnel Improvement Coordination (Coordenação Aperfeiçoamento Pessoal do Nível Superior). The authors have disclosed no other financial relationships related to this article. Submitted September 3, 2020; accepted in revised form November 5, 2020.
出版信息
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021 Jun 1;34(6):1-10. doi: 10.1097/01.ASW.0000749732.09228.a9.
OBJECTIVE
To review the clinical and scientific literature on the subjective ways of assessing burn scars and describe their main characteristics.
DATA SOURCES
The Latin American, Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Nursing Database, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus and Web of Science databases were used to search for studies published between 2014 and 2018 using descriptors in Portuguese, Spanish, and English.
STUDY SELECTION
After establishing the research question and the location and definition of the studies, as well as accounting for differences among databases and application of filters based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 886 references remained.
DATA EXTRACTION
Investigators reviewed the titles and abstracts of the sample and selected 188 relevant studies for full review.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-six subjective forms of assessment were found; most research concerned the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Scale.
CONCLUSIONS
The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Scale are the most common scales for assessing burn scars and have similar evaluation points such as vascularization, pliability, pigmentation, and height, which are the main parameters that contribute to the general assessment and severity of a scar. There is a need to improve instructions for application of the scales to facilitate better understanding and improve agreement among evaluators.
目的
回顾评估烧伤瘢痕的主观方法的临床和科学文献，并描述其主要特征。
资料来源
使用葡萄牙语、西班牙语和英语的描述词，检索拉丁美洲、加勒比海健康科学文献、护理数据库、PubMed、CINAHL、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中 2014 年至 2018 年发表的研究。
研究选择
在确定研究问题以及研究的地点和定义，以及考虑到数据库之间的差异和基于纳入和排除标准的筛选应用之后，保留了 886 条参考文献。
资料提取
调查人员审查了样本的标题和摘要，并选择了 188 篇相关研究进行全面审查。
资料综合
发现了 26 种主观评估形式；大多数研究涉及患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表和温哥华瘢痕量表。
结论
患者和观察者瘢痕评估量表和温哥华瘢痕量表是评估烧伤瘢痕最常用的量表，它们具有相似的评估点，如血管化、柔韧性、色素沉着和高度，这些是评估瘢痕的总体状况和严重程度的主要参数。需要改进量表的使用说明，以促进更好的理解和提高评估者之间的一致性。
Zotero 插件