LAUSR

OBJECTIVE Accurate wound assessment is crucial for determining the progression of healing and guides treatment strategies. Portable wound assessment devices can be useful in providing an accurate evaluation in the community where most cases are treated. The objective of this review was to compare the performance of various portable wound assessment techniques used for wound healing assessment described in the literature. METHOD In April 2020, electronic databases were searched, using appropriate search terms, for all available publications on the use of portable wound assessment devices on human and artificial wounds. The primary outcome was the reliability and reproducibility of measurement while the secondary outcome was the feasibility of the instrument. All studies underwent quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) to examine the quality of data. RESULTS A total of 129 articles were identified and 24 were included in the final review; 17 articles discussed two-dimensional (2D) devices; three articles discussed three-dimensional (3D) devices; and four articles discussed application-based devices. Most studies (n=8) reported on a 2D device that had an ICC of 0.92-0.99 for area measurement and a coefficient of variance of 3.1% with an error of 2.3% in human wounds and 1.55-3.7% in artificial wounds. The inter/intra observer reliability was 0.998 and 0.985, respectively with a scan time of two minutes per wound. The median QUADAS score was 12. CONCLUSION Based on the presented evidence, 2D-based portable wound assessment devices were the most studied and demonstrated good performance. Further studies are required for 3D and application-based measurement instruments.