A total of 85 consecutive patients had their wound area measured. The procedure was executed in two parts. The first was to take photographs of the wound using a smartphone and measure the area using the imitoMeasure application (imito; imito AG, Zurich, Switzerland) by two raters. The second was to take photographs of the same wound using a 10-megapixel digital camera and posterior measurement of the area using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md) by one operator. The mean area of the wounds was 12.20 ± 10.45 cm2 for imito and 12.67 ± 10.86 cm2 for ImageJ measurement. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between ImageJ and imito was 0.978 for a single measure and 0.989 for the average measure. Considering the two measurements, the ICC demonstrated excellent interobserver correlation using imito (0.987). Larger wounds had a greater difference between the methods (4.28% greater with the ImageJ measurement when considering areas >9 cm2). No difference was found between iOS (ICC, 0.995) and android (ICC, 0.970) smartphone operating systems. The smartphone application is a useful method for area measurement with excellent accuracy compared with digital photography and the ImageJ processing tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Biagioni et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: