Burn scar assessment scales

Overview

Burn scar assessment scales emerged from the recognition that scar appearance, pliability, and symptom burden are the dominant patient-relevant outcomes after burn wound closure, and that subjective clinical impression alone gives unreliable measurement of those outcomes. Standardized instruments aim to make scar status quantifiable so that change over time, response to treatment, and comparison across centers and trials become tractable [8, 6, 10].

The field is dominated by observer-rated, patient-rated, and combined scales. The Vancouver Scar Scale (originally the Burn Scar Index) is widely used in clinical practice and research ^[1]. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS) added a structured patient component and is the only scale rated superior on reliability in the systematic review ^[6]. Despite decades of development, the systematic literature finds that no scale has demonstrated empirical criterion validity, that the validation process is hindered by the absence of a gold standard for subjective scar quality, and that the field lacks a single instrument that is simultaneously reliable, valid, responsive, and feasible in routine clinical use [6, 8, 10].

Scar-specific health-related quality of life instruments and contracture-focused scales sit alongside the dominant appearance-focused scales. A 2020 systematic review of 15 HRQL instruments concluded that none had enough evidence to be highly recommended for routine use, with the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief and the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile holding the most favorable measurement properties ^[22]. The SCAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure validated across 731 surgical, traumatic, and burn-scar patients reported high reliability and the predicted pattern of correlation with POSAS ^[24].

Scale Typology

The earliest and most widely used scale is the Vancouver Scar Scale, also called the Burn Scar Index. It scores scar surface, thickness, border height, and color differences between scar and adjacent normal skin [1, 2]. In an early reliability study by Yeong of a 4-item scar-rating scale assessing scar surface, thickness, border height, and color, intraclass correlations for inter-rater reliability were reported as 0.94, 0.95, 0.90, and 0.85 respectively ^[2]; this is a separate study from the original 1990 Sullivan VSS development paper, which is not represented in the locked canon (see Controversies and Evidence Gaps). A pocket-sized scoring tool was developed to increase clinician compliance, and with that tool inter-rater reliability was reported as good ^[1].

The modified Vancouver Scar Scale extended the original instrument by adding a color scale to aid vascularity rating ^[30]. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale split assessment into an Observer-rated and a Patient-rated component, with Patient items including pain, itch, color, stiffness, thickness, and irregularity. Cultural adaptations of POSAS have been developed for Turkish ^[16] and Norwegian ^[26] use. The Norwegian POSAS Patient scale demonstrated high test-retest reliability in its validation cohort ^[26].

Burn-scar-specific health-related quality of life instruments form a separate family. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile was developed because no burn-scar-specific HRQL measure existed; four versions cover children, adults, and proxy caregiver respondents, with items distinct from existing observer scar measures and preliminary content validity supported ^[14]. The Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief is a burn-generic HRQL instrument with the most favorable measurement properties in a 2020 systematic review of 15 burn HRQL instruments ^[22]. The SCAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure covers Appearance, Symptoms, and Psychosocial Impact across surgical, traumatic, and burn scar populations ^[24].

Objective instruments such as the Cutometer, durometer, tissue tonometer, ultrasound thickness measurement, and DSM II ColorMeter are used as scar-property measurements that anchor or supplement scale-based ratings rather than as scales themselves [4, 17, 21].

Reliability and Validity

The systematic review of burn scar rating scales by Tyack et al. identified 18 scales and concluded that only POSAS received a high quality rating, and only in the area of reliability for total scores and the vascularity subscale ^[6]. The Vancouver Scar Scale received indeterminate ratings on construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness; all other criteria for POSAS, VSS, and the remaining 17 scales received indeterminate or low quality ratings due to methodological issues ^[6]. No scale had empirical testing of content validity, and no scale was of sufficient quality to consider criterion validity ^[6]. The review concluded that POSAS, with high quality reliability but indeterminate validity, was considered superior in performance based on existing evidence ^[6]. The VSS had the most thorough clinimetric review but available data received indeterminate quality ratings ^[6].

Direct head-to-head reliability studies have shown that the inter-rater reliabilities of the modified VSS and POSAS fall below the acceptable limit in panels of subjective and objective scar measurement tools, while objective devices such as Dermascan ultrasound achieved excellent intra- and inter-rater reliability above 0.90 ^[20]. A Norwegian POSAS validation reported inter-tester intraclass correlations for Observer parameters between 0.203 and 0.728 and a total Observer sum score intraclass correlation of 0.528; intra-tester reliability of the Observer scale and test-retest reliability of the Patient scale were satisfactory, but inter-tester reliability of the Observer scale was not ^[26]. A Turkish POSAS validation reported Cronbach alpha values of 0.93 for observer measurements and 0.77 for patient measurements ^[16].

The modified VSS subscale structure has been challenged. In a pediatric MVSS inter-rater reliability study, all subtests showed significant correlations except pigmentation, and the authors concluded that the pigmentation subtest's poor reliability calls its inclusion in scar assessment into question ^[30]. The same study proposed restricting interpretation to MVSS total scores given subtest unreliability ^[30]; this single-study recommendation has not been borne out at the review level, however, because the systematic review of burn scar rating scales concluded that the use of total scores has not been supported, nor has the measurement of pigmentation using a categorical scale ^[6]. The Modified Tissue Tonometer, an objective pliability instrument, reported an intraclass correlation of 0.957 between raters and a standard error of measurement of 0.025 mm ^[4]. The Kikuhime pressure sensor used under pressure garments showed good to excellent intraclass correlations and low standard errors of measurement ^[5].

The systematic literature converges on a structural barrier: the validation process for scar scales is hindered by the absence of a gold standard for subjective scar assessment and by the lack of other reliable objective instruments that could be used for a good comparison ^[8]. Many scales can produce reliable measurements but require multiple observers to obtain those results, which limits feasibility in clinical practice ^[8].

Clinical Application and Responsiveness

Scar rating scales serve three clinical functions: longitudinal monitoring, treatment-effect assessment in trials, and surgical decision support. The VSS, MVSS, and POSAS have been used as primary or secondary outcomes across silicone gel ^[31], pulsed dye laser with compression ^[11], non-ablative fractional laser ^[13], fractional CO2 ablative laser [23, 29], and autologous fat grafting ^[25] trials.

VSS scores show improvement in burn scars after treatment in multiple intervention designs. In a hemi-scar comparison, VSS scores showed greater improvement for vascularity, pliability, pigmentation, and height following pulsed dye laser plus compression than with compression alone ^[11]. A meta-analysis of eight studies covering 282 patients reported an average VSS improvement of 29% following fractional CO2 ablative laser treatment, though heterogeneity of treatment regimens limited specific treatment recommendations ^[23]. In a randomized trial of mature burn scars treated with non-ablative fractional laser, mPOSAS improvement appeared continuously during the post-operative period ^[13]. POSAS scores on a great deal of parameters showed statistically significant reduction in areas treated with autologous fat grafting in an uncontrolled series of 20 patients ^[25], and the POSAS-O improved significantly after ablative fractional CO2 laser treatment alongside improvement in subjective POSAS-P, neuropathic pain, and pruritus scores ^[27].

VSS measurements do not align with patient opinion of the scar in the early post-burn period. At the early assessment, VSS scores showed no correlation with patient visual analog scale scores for either question of patient scar opinion; at the late assessment, a significant correlation developed between VSS and patient opinion for one question but not the other ^[3]. The VSS was never intended to measure a patient's opinion of the scar, and these findings emphasize the necessity of including a patient-centered subjective component to routine scar monitoring ^[3]. In a separate evaluation across 45 patients at least two years post-burn, a significant correlation between POSAS and VSS was reported, and results from both scales correlated with restrictions in quality of life ^[17].

Responsiveness, the ability to detect change in scar status over time, remains the weakest psychometric dimension across the burn scar scale literature. All of the scales reviewed in one guide had been tested for the purpose of discriminating between patient groups, but only preliminary evidence existed for the ability of scales to measure change in scar properties over time ^[10]. Insufficient data on the dimensionality and responsiveness of existing scales were reported to support their use for measuring activities of daily living in burn patients ^[9].

Special Considerations

The majority of scale testing has occurred in Caucasian subjects, males, upper limb sites, and adults ^[10]. This concentration limits external validity of scale performance for pediatric, female, lower-limb, and non-Caucasian burn populations. A Norwegian POSAS validation recruited 26 adults and 24 children from a burns outpatient clinic ^[26]. A Mozambique survey developed and validated the Morphological African Scar Contractures Classification, a four-category visual scale that categorizes patients into levels of surgical intervention, and demonstrated its use by community health workers to extend surgical assessment beyond the hospital in rural settings ^[28].

Scar-specific health-related quality of life instruments have advanced burn-population assessment. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile is available in four versions for children aged 8 to 18 years, adults, caregivers of children under 8, and caregivers of children aged 8 to 18 ^[14]. The Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief was identified as easy to use, widely accessible, and demonstrating sufficient evidence for most measurement properties in a systematic review of burn HRQL instruments ^[22].

Pediatric responsiveness and the relationship between scar severity and psychological outcomes are imperfect. In adult facial burns, patient-rated facial scar severity was not predictive for self-esteem and depressive symptoms six months post-burn, while early depressive symptoms were associated with both patient-rated scar severity and subsequent self-esteem ^[12]. POSAS itch reporting in burn patients was significantly associated with mental health across time ^[15].

Contracture and range-of-motion assessment scales sit alongside scar appearance scales. A systematic review of 10 burn and non-burn-specific contracture scales identified good overall reliability as a common strength but insufficient data on factor analyses, content validity specific to activities of daily living, and responsiveness as common weaknesses; the review concluded that existing scales do not comprehensively measure activities of daily living as an isolated parameter and that a psychometrically valid, comprehensive self-reported burn contracture scale that measures activities of daily living needs to be developed ^[9]. Standard goniometry underestimates the range of motion impairment in individuals whose motion is limited by burn scars, supporting measurement methods that account for the unique characteristics of skin impairment ^[19].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

The dominant unsettled questions in burn scar assessment are structural rather than empirical. The validation process is hindered by the absence of a gold standard for subjective scar assessment and by the lack of reliable objective instruments that could anchor scale validation ^[8]. Objective-instrument candidates such as the Burns Objective Scar Scale panel of devices have been developed but have not displaced subjective scales for routine use ^[21]. No burn scar scale has been empirically tested for content validity, and no scale has been of sufficient quality to consider criterion validity in systematic review ^[6].

Scale performance is not uniform across subscales. A pediatric MVSS reliability study identified the pigmentation subtest as the only subtest without significant inter-rater correlation and called its inclusion into question ^[30], and the systematic review of burn scar rating scales concluded against categorical-scale measurement of pigmentation ^[6]. The use of total scores has likewise not been supported by the available evidence in the same systematic review ^[6]. Many scales can produce reliable measurements but require multiple observers to obtain those results, which constrains feasibility in clinical practice ^[8].

Population coverage is incomplete. Scale testing has concentrated on Caucasian male adult subjects with upper limb scars ^[10]. A cohort study of genetic influence on scar height and pliability after burn injury in individuals of European ancestry reported no individual genetic variants achieving the cut-off threshold of significance but identified biological processes related to the nervous system and cell adhesion as predominant gene pathways associated with both scar height and pliability subscores of the modified VSS; this illustrates that scale outputs are now being used as phenotypes in genomic studies despite the unresolved psychometric questions about the scales themselves ^[18].

Health-related quality of life measurement remains underspecified. A 2020 systematic review of 15 HRQL instruments concluded that none provided enough evidence on measurement properties to be highly recommended for routine use, although two instruments (the Burn Specific Health Scale-Brief and the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile) held the most favorable measurement properties ^[22]. The Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profiles were the only instruments with high-quality evidence for content validity in that review ^[22].

The standardization gap propagates into the broader burn literature. Hypertrophic scarring epidemiology reviews report that the absence of standardized valid measures of scarring was a major barrier to drawing strong conclusions; prevalence estimates for hypertrophic scarring after burns ranged between 32% and 72% across studies in part because of measurement inconsistency ^[7]. Studies of scar contracture assessment tools report insufficient data on dimensionality and responsiveness to support their use for activities-of-daily-living measurement ^[9], and standard goniometry underestimates motion impairment in burn-scarred skin, supporting development of measurement methods tailored to skin impairment ^[19]. The literature converges on a call to develop standardized validated scar evaluation instruments [7, 8].

Working-corpus coverage of pre-1995 landmark scale-development papers (including the original 1990 Sullivan Vancouver Scar Scale citation) is incomplete in this page's evidence base; the canonical primary citations for the original VSS development and several frequently cited pre-2000 instruments are not represented in the locked canon. Pages and claims sourced from systematic reviews ([6, 8, 10, 22]) carry the historical record where the primary landmarks are absent.

References

[1] Baryza MJ. "The Vancouver Scar Scale: an administration tool and its interrater reliability." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1995. PMID: 8537427. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8537427/

[2] Yeong EK. "Improved burn scar assessment with use of a new scar-rating scale." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1997. PMID: 9261704. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9261704/

[3] Martin D. "Changes in subjective vs objective burn scar assessment over time: does the patient agree with what we think?" The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2003. PMID: 14501421. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14501421/

[4] Corica GF. "Objective measurement of scarring by multiple assessors: is the tissue tonometer a reliable option?" Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2006. PMID: 16819358. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16819358/

[5] Van den Kerckhove E. "Reproducibility of repeated measurements with the Kikuhime pressure sensor under pressure garments in burn scar treatment." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2007. PMID: 17182191. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17182191/

[6] Tyack Z. "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. PMID: 22047828. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22047828/

[7] Lawrence JW. "Epidemiology and impact of scarring after burn injury: a systematic review of the literature." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2012. PMID: 22138807. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22138807/

[8] van der Wal MB. "A clinimetric overview of scar assessment scales." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2012. PMID: 22249102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22249102/

[9] Ehanire T. "A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-reported scales assessing burn contractures reveals the need for a new tool to measure contracture outcomes." Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society 2013. PMID: 23758108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23758108/

[10] Tyack Z. "A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2013. PMID: 23768711. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23768711/

[11] Bailey JK. "Multimodal quantitative analysis of early pulsed-dye laser treatment of scars at a pediatric burn hospital." Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] 2012. PMID: 22672578. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22672578/

[12] Hoogewerf CJ. "Impact of facial burns: relationship between depressive symptoms, self-esteem and scar severity." General hospital psychiatry 2014. PMID: 24417954. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24417954/

[13] Taudorf EH. "Non-ablative fractional laser provides long-term improvement of mature burn scars: a randomized controlled trial with histological assessment." Lasers in surgery and medicine 2015. PMID: 25154734. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25154734/

[14] Tyack Z. "Measuring the impact of burn scarring on health-related quality of life: development and preliminary content validation of the Brisbane Burn Scar Impact Profile (BBSIP) for children and adults." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2015. PMID: 26421693. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26421693/

[15] McGarry S. "Mental health and itch in burns patients: potential associations." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2016. PMID: 26948956. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26948956/

[16] Seyyah M. "Cultural adaptation and validation of Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale for Turkish use." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2018. PMID: 29580666. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29580666/

[17] Busche MN. "Burn scar evaluation using the Cutometer MPA 580 in comparison to Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and Vancouver Scar Scale." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2018. PMID: 29596600. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29596600/

[18] Wallace HJ. "Genetic influence on scar height and pliability after burn injury in individuals of European ancestry: a prospective cohort study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2019. PMID: 30595539. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30595539/

[19] Parry I. "Goniometric measurement of burn scar contracture: a paradigm shift challenging the standard." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 30919903. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30919903/

[20] Lee KC. "Investigating the intra- and inter-rater reliability of a panel of subjective and objective burn scar measurement tools." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2019. PMID: 31327551. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31327551/

[21] Lee KC. "Burns objective scar scale (BOSS): validation of an objective measurement devices based burn scar scale panel." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31708256. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31708256/

[22] Legemate CM. "Evaluation of measurement properties of health-related quality of life instruments for burns: a systematic review." The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2020. PMID: 31972752. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31972752/

[23] Mahar PD. "Improvement of burn scars treated with fractional ablative CO2 lasers: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Vancouver Scar Scale." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2021. PMID: 32805053. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32805053/

[24] Ziolkowski NI. "Psychometric findings for the SCAR-Q patient-reported outcome measure based on 731 children and adults with surgical, traumatic, and burn scars from four countries." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2020. PMID: 32842115. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32842115/

[25] Klinger M. "Autologous fat graft in scar treatment." The Journal of craniofacial surgery 2013. PMID: 24036737. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24036737/

[26] Hjellestad M. "Clinimetric properties of a translated and culturally adapted Norwegian version of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale for use in clinical practice and research." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2021. PMID: 33139075. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33139075/

[27] Issler-Fisher AC. "Effectiveness and safety of ablative fractional CO2 laser for the treatment of burn scars: a case-control study." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2021. PMID: 33121852. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33121852/

[28] Barba P. "Prevalence and severity of burn scars in rural Mozambique." World journal of surgery 2022. PMID: 35947179. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35947179/

[29] Lewis CJ. "Carbon dioxide laser treatment of burn-related scarring: results of the ELIPSE (Early Laser Intervention Promotes Scar Evolution) prospective randomized controlled trial." Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2023. PMID: 37393760. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37393760/

[30] Forbes-Duchart L. "Determination of inter-rater reliability in pediatric burn scar assessment using a modified version of the Vancouver Scar Scale." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2007. PMID: 17438503. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17438503/

[31] Karagoz H. "Comparison of efficacy of silicone gel, silicone gel sheeting, and topical onion extract including heparin and allantoin for the treatment of postburn hypertrophic scars." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2009. PMID: 19766399. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19766399/