A systematic review of the performance of instruments designed to measure the dimensions of pressure ulcers

O'Meara, Susan M., Bland, J. Martin, Dumville, Jo C. and Cullum, Nicky A. (2012) A systematic review of the performance of instruments designed to measure the dimensions of pressure ulcers. Wound Repair and Regeneration, 20 3: 263-276. doi:10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00783.x


Author O'Meara, Susan M.
Bland, J. Martin
Dumville, Jo C.
Cullum, Nicky A.
Title A systematic review of the performance of instruments designed to measure the dimensions of pressure ulcers
Journal name Wound Repair and Regeneration   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1524-475X
1067-1927
Publication date 2012-05-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1524-475X.2012.00783.x
Volume 20
Issue 3
Start page 263
End page 276
Total pages 14
Place of publication Hoboken, NJ, United States
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Language eng
Abstract The objective was to undertake a systematic review of the performance of wound measurement instruments used for patients with pressure ulcers. Studies of any design, evaluating methods for estimating wound diameter, depth, surface area, or volume in patients with pressure ulcers were included. Eligible evaluations had to report intra- or inter-rater reliability, accuracy, agreement, or feasibility of methods. Electronic databases and other sources were accessed for study identification. Included studies were critically appraised using a modified checklist for diagnostic test evaluations. Twelve studies were included. Most had methodological problems and/or used inappropriate statistical methods. Reliable methods for measuring pressure ulcer surface area may include: grid tracings from photographs combined with whole plus partial square count; a portable digital pad; and stereophotogrammetry combined with computerized image analysis. The agreement between photographic tracing and direct transparency tracing may be satisfactory (both methods being combined with computerized planimetry). No definitive conclusions could be reached about studies of diameter or depth; this means that there is little evidence to underpin recommendations in clinical guidelines. Evaluations of volume measurement were of poor quality, and there were few data on feasibility. Further primary research is needed to evaluate methods of wound measurement used in clinical practice.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status Non-UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 9 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 8 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Thu, 22 May 2014, 19:34:15 EST by Vicki Percival on behalf of School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work