Burns Scar Index (Vancouver Scar Scale): Difference between revisions

(Started evidence)
(Added responsiveness)
Line 8: Line 8:
== Introduction  ==
== Introduction  ==
Developed in 1990 by Sullivan et al<ref>Sullivan, T et al. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2373734/ Rating the burn scar]. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1990;11: 256-60. </ref>, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was the first widely used assessment to record [[Burns Overview|burns]] scars using a semi-quantitative approach<ref name=":1">Park JW, Koh YG, Shin SH, Choi Y, Kim W, Yoo HH, et al. [https://www.jkslms.or.kr/journal/view.html?uid=263&vmd=Full Review of Scar Assessment Scales.] Medical Lasers. 2022;11:1-7 </ref>, in order to measure change in scar appearance during healing and treatment<ref name=":0">Baryza, M J, and G A Baryza. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8537427/ The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability.] The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1995; 16: 535-8. </ref>. It is one of the most frequently used outcome measures for scar assessment<ref name=":1" />.   
Developed in 1990 by Sullivan et al<ref>Sullivan, T et al. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2373734/ Rating the burn scar]. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1990;11: 256-60. </ref>, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was the first widely used assessment to record [[Burns Overview|burns]] scars using a semi-quantitative approach<ref name=":1">Park JW, Koh YG, Shin SH, Choi Y, Kim W, Yoo HH, et al. [https://www.jkslms.or.kr/journal/view.html?uid=263&vmd=Full Review of Scar Assessment Scales.] Medical Lasers. 2022;11:1-7 </ref>, in order to measure change in scar appearance during healing and treatment<ref name=":0">Baryza, M J, and G A Baryza. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8537427/ The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability.] The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1995; 16: 535-8. </ref>. It is one of the most frequently used outcome measures for scar assessment<ref name=":1" />.   
The impacts of [[Scar Management|scarring]] can be multifaceted, including movement and function limitations, long term [[Pain Behaviours|pain]] or psycho-social effects, and therefore use of an outcome measure is beneficial to monitor the scars' progress<ref name=":3" />.   


== Intended Population<br>  ==
== Intended Population<br>  ==
The VSS is for use with patients with [[Scar Management|scarring]] from burn injuries<ref>Thompson CM, Sood RF, Honari S, Carrougher GJ, Gibran NS. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644737/#!po=83.3333 What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers]. Burns. 2015; 41: 1442-1448</ref>. The VSS is used in both clinical practice and research<ref name=":0" />.  
The VSS is for use with patients with scarring from burn injuries<ref>Thompson CM, Sood RF, Honari S, Carrougher GJ, Gibran NS. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644737/#!po=83.3333 What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers]. Burns. 2015; 41: 1442-1448</ref>. The VSS is used in both clinical practice and research<ref name=":0" />.  


== Method of Use  ==
== Method of Use  ==
Line 18: Line 20:


=== Reliability  ===
=== Reliability  ===
There is not strong evidence for the reliability of the VSS, with one systematic review describing the reliability as indeterminate<ref name=":2">Tyack Z., Simons M., Spinks A., Wasiak J. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047828/ A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use]. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2012; 38: 6-18</ref>. Nonetheless, a more recent journal found "moderate" inter-rater reliability and "acceptable" internal consistency<ref name=":3">Min Hui Choo A., Siang Ong Y., Issa F. [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2021.643098/full Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?] Front. Surg. 2021</ref>.  
There is not strong evidence for the reliability of the VSS, with one systematic review describing the reliability as indeterminate<ref name=":2">Tyack Z., Simons M., Spinks A., Wasiak J. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047828/ A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use]. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2012; 38: 6-18</ref>. Especially when the scar is larger in size or an asymmetrical shape<ref name=":1" />. Nonetheless, a more recent journal found "moderate" inter-rater reliability and "acceptable" internal consistency<ref name=":3">Min Hui Choo A., Siang Ong Y., Issa F. [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2021.643098/full Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare?] Front. Surg. 2021</ref>.  


Research suggests different modifications to improve the reliability, including to improve the instructions and teaching<ref>da Costa PTL., Echevarría-Guanilo ME., Gonçalves N.,  Girondi JBR, Gonçalves ADC. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33979826/ Subjective Tools for Burn Scar Assessment: An Integrative Review]. Advances in skin & wound care 2021; 34: 1-10</ref>, or the use of a pocket tool improves the inter-rater reliability to good<ref name=":0" />.
Research suggests different modifications to improve the reliability, including to improve the instructions and teaching<ref>da Costa PTL., Echevarría-Guanilo ME., Gonçalves N.,  Girondi JBR, Gonçalves ADC. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33979826/ Subjective Tools for Burn Scar Assessment: An Integrative Review]. Advances in skin & wound care 2021; 34: 1-10</ref>, or the use of a pocket tool improves the inter-rater reliability to good<ref name=":0" />.


=== Validity  ===
=== Validity  ===
The VSS is described as one of the first validated scar assessment tools<ref name=":4">Carrière M.E., Van de Kar  A.L., Van Zuijlen, P.P.M. Scar Assessment Scales. In: Téot L., Mustoe T.A., Middelkoop E., Gauglitz G.G. (eds) Textbook on Scar Management. Springer, Cham. 2020</ref>. However, more recent systematic reviews do not support its validity<ref name=":2" /><ref>Brusselaers N., Pirayesh A., Hoeksema H., Verbelen J., Blot S., Monstrey S. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20828761/ Burn scar assessment: a systematic review of different scar scale]s. The Journal of surgical research. 2010; 164: 115-23</ref>. But because the VSS is often modified, in multiple different ways including changing the 4 items or adding ones<ref name=":4" />, it is difficult to accurately assess the validity<ref name=":3" />. Moreover, within the research the majority of subjects were adult Caucasian males, limiting the validity to this population<ref>Tyack Z, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Kimble R, Simons M. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23768711/ A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use.] Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2013; 39: 1341-50</ref>.
The VSS is described as one of the first validated scar assessment tools<ref name=":4">Carrière M.E., Van de Kar  A.L., Van Zuijlen, P.P.M. Scar Assessment Scales. In: Téot L., Mustoe T.A., Middelkoop E., Gauglitz G.G. (eds) Textbook on Scar Management. Springer, Cham. 2020</ref>. However, more recent systematic reviews do not support this claim<ref name=":2" /><ref>Brusselaers N., Pirayesh A., Hoeksema H., Verbelen J., Blot S., Monstrey S. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20828761/ Burn scar assessment: a systematic review of different scar scale]s. The Journal of surgical research. 2010; 164: 115-23</ref>. But, because the VSS is often modified, in multiple different ways including changing the 4 items or adding ones<ref name=":4" />, it is difficult to accurately assess the validity on a large scale<ref name=":3" />. Moreover, within the research the majority of subjects were adult Caucasian males, limiting the validity to this population<ref name=":5">Tyack Z, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Kimble R, Simons M. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23768711/ A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use.] Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2013; 39: 1341-50</ref>.


=== Responsiveness  ===
=== Responsiveness  ===
Among all burn scar scales, there is only preliminary evidence supporting their accuracy in measuring changes to the scar over time<ref name=":5" />.
The VSS does not measure patients own subjective assessment of the scar, such as pain or itching, or impact on their day to day life<ref name=":1" />. It is anticipated also incorporating these factors into an outcome measure would  improve patient centered care and satisfaction<ref>Lipman K., Wang M., Berthiaume E., Holloway J., Da Lio A, Ting K., et al. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31688125/ Evaluating Current Scar Assessment Methods]. Annals of plastic surgery. 2020; 84: 222-231


=== Miscellaneous<span style="font-size: 20px; font-weight: normal;" class="Apple-style-span"></span><br> ===
</ref>.


== Links ==
=== Links ===


== References  ==
== References  ==


<references />
<references />

Revision as of 11:29, 22 May 2022

This article or area is currently under construction and may only be partially complete. Please come back soon to see the finished work! (22/05/2022)

Original Editor - User Name

Top Contributors - Chloe Waller, Kim Jackson and Vidya Acharya  

Introduction[edit | edit source]

Developed in 1990 by Sullivan et al[1], the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) was the first widely used assessment to record burns scars using a semi-quantitative approach[2], in order to measure change in scar appearance during healing and treatment[3]. It is one of the most frequently used outcome measures for scar assessment[2].

The impacts of scarring can be multifaceted, including movement and function limitations, long term pain or psycho-social effects, and therefore use of an outcome measure is beneficial to monitor the scars' progress[4].

Intended Population
[edit | edit source]

The VSS is for use with patients with scarring from burn injuries[5]. The VSS is used in both clinical practice and research[3].

Method of Use[edit | edit source]

Four characteristics of the scar are assessed. These are: vascularity, height, pliability, and pigmentation[6]. Each characteristic is given a score, which are added together to give an overall score between 0 and 13[7].

Evidence[edit | edit source]

Reliability[edit | edit source]

There is not strong evidence for the reliability of the VSS, with one systematic review describing the reliability as indeterminate[8]. Especially when the scar is larger in size or an asymmetrical shape[2]. Nonetheless, a more recent journal found "moderate" inter-rater reliability and "acceptable" internal consistency[4].

Research suggests different modifications to improve the reliability, including to improve the instructions and teaching[9], or the use of a pocket tool improves the inter-rater reliability to good[3].

Validity[edit | edit source]

The VSS is described as one of the first validated scar assessment tools[10]. However, more recent systematic reviews do not support this claim[8][11]. But, because the VSS is often modified, in multiple different ways including changing the 4 items or adding ones[10], it is difficult to accurately assess the validity on a large scale[4]. Moreover, within the research the majority of subjects were adult Caucasian males, limiting the validity to this population[12].

Responsiveness[edit | edit source]

Among all burn scar scales, there is only preliminary evidence supporting their accuracy in measuring changes to the scar over time[12].

The VSS does not measure patients own subjective assessment of the scar, such as pain or itching, or impact on their day to day life[2]. It is anticipated also incorporating these factors into an outcome measure would improve patient centered care and satisfaction[13].

Links[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  1. Sullivan, T et al. Rating the burn scar. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1990;11: 256-60.
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Park JW, Koh YG, Shin SH, Choi Y, Kim W, Yoo HH, et al. Review of Scar Assessment Scales. Medical Lasers. 2022;11:1-7
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 Baryza, M J, and G A Baryza. The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability. The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation. 1995; 16: 535-8.
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 Min Hui Choo A., Siang Ong Y., Issa F. Scar Assessment Tools: How Do They Compare? Front. Surg. 2021
  5. Thompson CM, Sood RF, Honari S, Carrougher GJ, Gibran NS. What score on the Vancouver Scar Scale constitutes a hypertrophic scar? Results from a survey of North American burn-care providers. Burns. 2015; 41: 1442-1448
  6. Fearmonti R., Bond J., Erdmann D., & Levinson H. A review of scar scales and scar measuring devices. Eplasty. 2010: 10; 43
  7. Nguyen T, Feldstein S, Shumaker P, Krakowski A. A review of scar assessment scales. Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. 2015; 34.
  8. 8.0 8.1 Tyack Z., Simons M., Spinks A., Wasiak J. A systematic review of the quality of burn scar rating scales for clinical and research use. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2012; 38: 6-18
  9. da Costa PTL., Echevarría-Guanilo ME., Gonçalves N., Girondi JBR, Gonçalves ADC. Subjective Tools for Burn Scar Assessment: An Integrative Review. Advances in skin & wound care 2021; 34: 1-10
  10. 10.0 10.1 Carrière M.E., Van de Kar A.L., Van Zuijlen, P.P.M. Scar Assessment Scales. In: Téot L., Mustoe T.A., Middelkoop E., Gauglitz G.G. (eds) Textbook on Scar Management. Springer, Cham. 2020
  11. Brusselaers N., Pirayesh A., Hoeksema H., Verbelen J., Blot S., Monstrey S. Burn scar assessment: a systematic review of different scar scales. The Journal of surgical research. 2010; 164: 115-23
  12. 12.0 12.1 Tyack Z, Wasiak J, Spinks A, Kimble R, Simons M. A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use. Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries. 2013; 39: 1341-50
  13. Lipman K., Wang M., Berthiaume E., Holloway J., Da Lio A, Ting K., et al. Evaluating Current Scar Assessment Methods. Annals of plastic surgery. 2020; 84: 222-231