title: A comparison of computer-assisted and manual wound size measurement.
abstract: Accurate and precise wound measurements are a critical component of every wound assessment. To examine the reliability and validity of a new computerized technique for measuring human and animal wounds, chronic human wounds (N = 45) and surgical animal wounds (N = 38) were assessed using manual and computerized techniques. Using intraclass correlation coefficients, intrarater and interrater reliability of surface area measurements obtained using the computerized technique were compared to those obtained using acetate tracings and planimetry. A single measurement of surface area using either technique produced excellent intrarater and interrater reliability for both human and animal wounds, but the computerized technique was more precise than the manual technique for measuring the surface area of animal wounds. For both types of wounds and measurement techniques, intrarater and interrater reliability improved when the average of three repeated measurements was obtained. The precision of each technique with human wounds and the precision of the manual technique with animal wounds also improved when three repeated measurement results were averaged. Concurrent validity between the two techniques was excellent for human wounds but poor for the smaller animal wounds, regardless of whether single or the average of three repeated surface area measurements was used. The computerized technique permits reliable and valid assessment of the surface area of both human and animal wounds.
authors.affiliation: School of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, Elborn College, London, Canada.
authors.forename: Habiba A
authors.initials: HA
authors.lastname: Thawer
authors.forename: Pamela E
authors.initials: PE
authors.lastname: Houghton
authors.forename: M Gail
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Woodbury
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Keast
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Campbell
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D015982:Bias; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D004282:Documentation / Q000592:standards; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D051379:Mice; D008815:Mice, Inbred Strains; D009730:Nursing Assessment / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D015403:Nursing Evaluation Research; D015588:Observer Variation; D010780:Photogrammetry / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D014945:Wound Healing; D014947:Wounds and Injuries / Q000145:classification / Q000451:nursing* / Q000473:pathology*