We have located links that may give you full text access.
Evaluating an iPad app in measuring wound dimension: a pilot study.
Journal of Wound Care 2017 December 3
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested the reliability, validity and sensitivity of an innovative prototype iPad app, WoundAide, developed to measure wound dimension (length, width and surface area) using image analysis.
METHOD: A prospective evaluation was conducted comparing WoundAide (WA) with two gold standard instruments, Wound Zoom (WZ) and Visitrak (VT). The study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Patients were recruited after obtaining local ethics approval.
RESULTS: We recruited six patients with 10 venous wounds. Images were captured by two researchers. Generally, 7/10 (70%) of the wounds had surface areas of less than 16cm². The intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.95 for length, width and surface area for all measuring devices. The mean differences for length, width and surface area were not statistically significant. The average percentage of coefficient of variation for WA ranged from 3% to 33.3%, WZ 1.3% to 19.3%, and VT 2.1% to 43.4%. Length, width and surface area fell within the 95% limit of agreement. The capturing sensitivity was, on average, 75% for WA, 99.4% for VT, and 100% for WZ.
CONCLUSION: WA has similar reliability and validity as WZ and VT. However, WA has the least sensitivity in image captures. Nonetheless, with enhancements made to its user-interface and system algorithm, this limitation can be addressed.
METHOD: A prospective evaluation was conducted comparing WoundAide (WA) with two gold standard instruments, Wound Zoom (WZ) and Visitrak (VT). The study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. Patients were recruited after obtaining local ethics approval.
RESULTS: We recruited six patients with 10 venous wounds. Images were captured by two researchers. Generally, 7/10 (70%) of the wounds had surface areas of less than 16cm². The intraclass correlation coefficient was greater than 0.95 for length, width and surface area for all measuring devices. The mean differences for length, width and surface area were not statistically significant. The average percentage of coefficient of variation for WA ranged from 3% to 33.3%, WZ 1.3% to 19.3%, and VT 2.1% to 43.4%. Length, width and surface area fell within the 95% limit of agreement. The capturing sensitivity was, on average, 75% for WA, 99.4% for VT, and 100% for WZ.
CONCLUSION: WA has similar reliability and validity as WZ and VT. However, WA has the least sensitivity in image captures. Nonetheless, with enhancements made to its user-interface and system algorithm, this limitation can be addressed.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app