A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Reliability testing of a new scar assessment tool, Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs (MAPS). | LitMetric

Reliability testing of a new scar assessment tool, Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs (MAPS).

J Burn Care Rehabil

Department of Occupational Therapy, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, Australia.

Published: October 2005

A new scar-assessment tool, the Matching Assessment of Scars and Photographs (MAPS), which uses a set of reference photographs, a numeric scale, and location technique, was tested for its reliability in two stages. First, using five adults, three raters assessed 32 burns scars twice within 3 days. Subsequently, reliability was tested during a 6-month time frame, emphasizing the process of localizing test areas as scars changed and raters forgot the previous assessment. Three raters, from a pool of five, each made three assessments on 29 scars in seven subjects, on average 8 weeks apart. Inter-rater reliability was tested, using Kendall's Tau C and intraclass correlations, respectively, for stages 1 and 2. Agreement was good for border height (0.63-0.70 and 0.78), moderate to good for thickness (0.60-0.74 and 0.81), and good for color (0.55-0.71 and 0.79), whereas for surface it was fair (0.25-0.38 and 0.40). The localization technique was reliable (accuracy within 3 mm) in 93% to 96% of recordings. The MAPS tool is considered ready for clinical use.

Download full-text PDF

Source

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

tool matching
8
matching assessment
8
assessment scars
8
scars photographs
8
photographs maps
8
three raters
8
reliability tested
8
scars
5
reliability
4
reliability testing
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!