BMJ Open (Apr 2024)

Ultrasound measurement of traumatic scar and skin thickness: a scoping review of evidence across the translational pipeline of research-to-practice

  • Megan Simons,
  • Roy M Kimble,
  • Zephanie Tyack,
  • Brandon Meikle,
  • Tristan Reddan,
  • Tamsin Mahoney,
  • Bryan Dai

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078361
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 4

Abstract

Read online

Objectives To identify the ultrasound methods used in the literature to measure traumatic scar thickness, and map gaps in the translation of these methods using evidence across the research-to-practice pipeline.Design Scoping review.Data sources Electronic database searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Web of Science. Grey literature searches were conducted in Google. Searches were conducted from inception (date last searched 27 May 2022).Data extraction Records using brightness mode (B-mode) ultrasound to measure scar and skin thickness across the research-to-practice pipeline of evidence were included. Data were extracted from included records pertaining to: methods used; reliability and measurement error; clinical, health service, implementation and feasibility outcomes; factors influencing measurement methods; strengths and limitations; and use of measurement guidelines and/or frameworks.Results Of the 9309 records identified, 118 were analysed (n=82 articles, n=36 abstracts) encompassing 5213 participants. Reporting of methods used was poor. B-mode, including high-frequency (ie, >20 MHz) ultrasound was the most common type of ultrasound used (n=72 records; 61% of records), and measurement of the combined epidermal and dermal thickness (n=28; 24%) was more commonly measured than the epidermis or dermis alone (n=7, 6%). Reliability of ultrasound measurement was poorly reported (n=14; 12%). The scar characteristics most commonly reported to be measured were epidermal oedema, dermal fibrosis and hair follicle density. Most records analysed (n=115; 97%) pertained to the early stages of the research-to-practice pipeline, as part of research initiatives.Conclusions The lack of evaluation of measurement initiatives in routine clinical practice was identified as an evidence gap. Diverse methods used in the literature identified the need for greater standardisation of ultrasound thickness measurements. Findings have been used to develop nine methodological considerations for practitioners to guide methods and reporting.