Suppr超能文献

伤口大小的测量方法:一项比较研究。

Methods of measuring wound size: a comparative study.

作者信息

Plassmann P, Melhuish J M, Harding K G

出版信息

Ostomy Wound Manage. 1994 Sep;40(7):50-2, 54, 56-60.

PMID:7546091
Abstract

The lack of an accepted method of accurate and objective measurement of wound dimensions is a major obstacle to the assessment of effective wound management regimes. This study compares three different wound volume measurement techniques (filling the lesion with saline, molding of a dental impression material and a computer vision method based on image processing and the Structured Light technique) in terms of accuracy, precision and practicability in a clinical environment. Three groups of hospital staff, doctors, nurses and technicians, repeatedly measured a set of 6 different models of wounds. Measuring wound volume by filling it with saline produces results with standard deviations between 9 percent and 18 percent of the actual volume. Dental impression material performs better, between 5 percent and 16 percent, but is difficult to apply and time consuming to use. Apart from the advantage of providing instant optical records of wounds, the image processing method produces more reliable volume measurements with a standard deviation of between 3 percent and 15 percent. The results demonstrate that the computer based method yields the most reproducible results with a minimum of inter-observer error but the method is not applicable for undermined, very deep and very large wounds.

摘要

缺乏一种被广泛接受的准确、客观测量伤口尺寸的方法是评估有效伤口处理方案的主要障碍。本研究在临床环境中,就三种不同的伤口体积测量技术(用生理盐水填充伤口、使用牙科印模材料塑形以及基于图像处理和结构光技术的计算机视觉方法)在准确性、精密度和实用性方面进行了比较。三组医院工作人员,医生、护士和技术人员,对一组6种不同的伤口模型进行了重复测量。用生理盐水填充伤口测量体积,其结果的标准差在实际体积的9%至18%之间。牙科印模材料表现更好,在5%至16%之间,但应用困难且耗时。除了能即时提供伤口光学记录这一优点外,图像处理方法产生的体积测量结果更可靠,标准差在3%至15%之间。结果表明,基于计算机的方法产生的结果重复性最高,观察者间误差最小,但该方法不适用于有潜行、非常深和非常大的伤口。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验