Abstract
Over the last decades, many scar assessment scales have been developed, not only to evaluate the effectiveness of new and existing treatments in the research setting but also to monitor scars in individual patients. Clinician-reported scar scales allow for the evaluation of observable aspects of the scar, while patient-reported scar scales enable the evaluation of additional health domains that cannot be observed by clinicians, such as scar symptoms or sensations and quality of life. The quality of scar assessment scales is determined by several measurement properties (i.e., validity, reliability, and responsiveness). This chapter provides an overview of the content and development of the most frequently used scar assessment scales.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Background
Over the last decades, standardized measurements of medical treatment outcome have become increasingly important. First of all, application of evidence-based medicine requires that the research field evaluates the effectiveness of new and existing treatments. Therefore, no clinical trial can exist without the appropriate outcome measurement instruments to determine the study outcomes in a reliable and valid way. These outcome measurement instruments are not only vital in the research setting but also indispensable in daily clinical practice to monitor scars in individual patients. Furthermore, standardized scar measurements are performed and recorded in clinical registries with the aim to improve the quality of care and patient health outcomes.
Scar outcome measurement instruments can be either measurement devices or scar assessment scales. Measurement devices are often seen as objective instruments that provide solid quantitative analyses of scar characteristics. However, measurement devices have to be purchased for sometimes high prices and can only be used at one place at a time. Another disadvantage may be that most devices are only able to evaluate one scar characteristic. In addition, cutting-edge measurement technologies often involve time-consuming measurements and analyses that require training of the observer, which might be appropriate in research settings but is less suitable in clinical practice. Contrary to measurement devices, scar assessment scales are qualitative evaluations of multiple scar characteristics provided by an individual, either the patient or the clinician/researcher. Scar assessment scales are sometimes criticized by their subjective nature. However, advantages of scar assessment scales are their ability to provide fast evaluation of multiple scar characteristics, their (usually) free and easy accessibility, and their ability to capture the patient’s view on their scars. The latter is especially important as nowadays patients are receiving more information about treatment options and are getting more involved in making treatment decisions and in reporting treatment outcomes. In this chapter, an overview of the content and development of most frequently used scar assessment scales is provided.
2 Domains
Scars can influence patients in several health domains, ranging from appearance to quality of life. These different domains require different levels of measurements. Measurements acquired with clinician-reported scales are limited to observable aspects of the scar, such as appearance, physical characteristics, and functional impairment of the scar. On the other hand, patient-reported scar scales allow for the evaluation of additional health domains that cannot be observed by clinicians, such as scar symptoms and quality of life.
3 Scar Assessment Scales
◘ Table 14.1 provides an overview of consecutive developed scar assessment scales, the constructs measured, and whether it is reported by the patient or clinician. ◘ Table 14.2 shows which scar aspects are assessed in the most frequently used scales. The first concepts of scar assessment scales were reported in the late 1980s, but the first widely used, validated scar scale was developed in 1990 by Sullivan et al., which became widely known as the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) [1]. The VSS consists of four items: vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, and pliability. Since this first introduction to scar assessment scales, the development of many other scales followed. Various authors modified the original version of the VSS by adding extra items to the scale or altering the answering categories of the existing items [2,3,4]. This resulted in an abundance of modified VSS versions—of which the modified VSS by Baryza et al. is the most widely used [2]. The Seattle, Hamilton, and Manchester scar scales were consecutively developed from 1997 to 1998 [5,6,7]. The Seattle and Hamilton scales were both developed for photographic evaluation of scar [5, 6]. The Manchester scar scale introduced two new items: an “overall assessment,” rated on a VAS scale (0–10), and if the scar appeared matte or shiny [7]. Until 2000, the focus remained on the clinician/observer, as all developed scales were clinician-reported, focusing on visual and physical scar characteristics. This changed when Nedelec et al. added a symptomatic assessment (i.e., items of pain and itch) to the original VSS [3]. However, it was not until 2004 that in addition to symptoms such as pain and itch, the patient’s opinion on visual and physical scar characteristics was incorporated into a scar assessment scale called the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) [8]. The POSAS captures both the clinician’s (observer’s) and the patient’s perspective on multiple-characteristics scar quality. A few years after the introduction of the POSAS, Bock et al. made it possible to evaluate the quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scars by the development of the Bock Quality of Life Scale [9]. This was the first patient-reported scar scale measuring at the level of quality of life. Around the same time, the Stony Brooks Scar Evaluation Scale was introduced, which is a clinician-reported scar scale specifically designed for the assessment of surgical scars [10]. Therefore, it included an item to evaluate the presence of suture marks. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire , Patient-Reported Impact of Scars Measure (PSAQ), and Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BSSIP) are more recently developed patient-reported scales which measure aspects of quality of life, in addition visual and physical scar characteristics, symptoms, and/or satisfaction [10,11,13]. Most recently, the Scar Q was developed for the evaluation of physical characteristics, scar appearance, symptoms, and physiological problems [14].
4 Measurement Properties/Clinimetrics
To evaluate the quality of available scar assessment scales, several measurement properties must be considered, i.e. ,validity, reliability, and responsiveness [15]. The most important property is content validity. Content validity is the degree to which the content of a measure is an adequate reflection of the construct to be measured [15]. Good content validity means that all items included in the scale are relevant and no relevant items are missing for the construct of interest (within a specific population and context of use). Furthermore, it means that patients should understand the content as intended. Lack of content validity can influence all other measurement properties [16]. To ensure good content validity, it is important that well-designed scale development studies are performed that use qualitative methods to gain patient/professional input on the content of the scale. In addition, the draft scale must be pilot tested to ensure its content is relevant, comprehensive, and comprehensible for patients. In ◘ Table 14.3, it is noted if these requirements were met for the included scar assessment scales. Besides content validity, reliability is an important clinimetric property. Reliability refers to the extent to which scores for patients who have not changed are the same for repeated measurements [15]. Reliability and measurement error are related but distinct measurement properties. Reliability refers to the ability of a measure to distinguish between patients, and measurement error refers to the systematic and random error attributed to the measurement instrument [17]. The responsiveness is the ability of a scale to detect changes over time in the construct to be measured (e.g., scar quality) [15]. All measurement properties should be evaluated in the specific population in which it will be used. The context of use, referring to the application of use (i.e., discriminative, evaluative, or diagnostic application) and to the setting (e.g., hospital or at home), should also be taken into account. Furthermore, the instrument must be practical and user-friendly in order to be easily applicable in clinical practice: an aspect which is defined as feasibility [18]. It is crucial to consider the measurement properties, the context of use, and the feasibility when choosing a measurement instrument. Measurements obtained by poor-quality or non-validated instruments are not trustworthy, and thus, studies that utilize these instruments yield unreliable results and invalid conclusions.
5 Conclusion
Scar assessment scales are useful tools to measure various domains of scars. This chapter provides an overview of the most frequently used scar scales, including their content and development. It is of paramount importance to evaluate the clinimetric properties of an instrument prior to using it for scar assessments for clinical or research purposes in order to prevent measurements obtained by poor-quality instruments.
Take-Home Messages
-
Scar assessment scales are important to evaluate the effectiveness of scar treatments and to monitor patients over time.
-
Traditional scar scales are clinician/researcher-reported, focusing on the appearance and physical characteristics of the scar, while more recently, developed scales are patient-reported scales which measure aspects of quality of life.
-
(Content) Validity, reliability, and responsiveness are important measurement properties which must be evaluated prior to using a scale for scar assessments.
References
Sullivan T, Smith J, Kermode J, McIver E, Courtemanche DJ. Rating the burn scar. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1990;11(3):256–60.
Baryza MJ, Baryza GA. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1995;16(5):535–8.
Nedelec B, Shankowsky HA, Tredget EE. Rating the resolving hypertrophic scar: comparison of the Vancouver Scar Scale and scar volume. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000;21(3):205–12.
Forbes-Duchart L, Marshall S, Strock A, Cooper JE. Determination of inter-rater reliability in pediatric burn scar assessment using a modified version of the Vancouver Scar Scale. J Burn Care Research. 2007;28(3):460–7.
Yeong EK, Mann R, Engrav LH, Goldberg M, Cain V, Costa B, et al. Improved burn scar assessment with use of a new scar-rating scale. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1997;18(4):353–5.. discussion 2
Crowe JM, Simpson K, Johnson W, Allen J. Reliability of photographic analysis in determining change in scar appearance. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1998;19(2):183–6.
Beausang E, Floyd H, Dunn KW, Orton CI, Ferguson MW. A new quantitative scale for clinical scar assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(6):1954–61.
Draaijers LJ, Tempelman FR, Botman YA, Tuinebreijer WE, Middelkoop E, Kreis RW, et al. The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(7):1960–5; discussion 6–7.
Bock O, Schmid-Ott G, Malewski P, Mrowietz U. Quality of life of patients with keloid and hypertrophic scarring. Arch Dermatol Res. 2006; 97:433–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-006-0651-7.
Singer AJ, Arora B, Dagum A, Valentine S, Hollander JE. Development and validation of a novel scar evaluation scale. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(7):1892–7.
Tyack Z, Ziviani J, Kimble R, Plaza A, Jones A, Cuttle L, et al. Measuring the impact of burn scarring on health-related quality of life: development and preliminary content validation of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP) for children and adults. Burns. 2015;41(7):1405–19.
Durani P, McGrouther DA, Ferguson MW. The Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire: a reliable and valid patient-reported outcomes measure for linear scars. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(5):1481–9.
Brown BC, McKenna SP, Solomon M, Wilburn J, McGrouther DA, Bayat A. The patient-reported impact of scars measure: development and validation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(5):1439–49.
Klassen AF, Ziolkowski N, Mundy LR, Miller HC, McIlvride A, DiLaura A, et al. Development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument to evaluate treatments for scars: the SCAR-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(4):e1672.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1159–70.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(10):1033–9.
De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carrière, M.E., van de Kar, A.L., van Zuijlen, P.P.M. (2020). Scar Assessment Scales. In: Téot, L., Mustoe, T.A., Middelkoop, E., Gauglitz, G.G. (eds) Textbook on Scar Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44766-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44766-3_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-44765-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-44766-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)