TBSA estimation methods (Rule of Nines, Lund-Browder, palm)

Overview¶

Estimation of the percent total body surface area burned is the single classification step that drives the rest of acute burn management. Burn size guides referral to burn centers, fluid resuscitation parameters, hospital resource distribution, and mortality-based interventions ^[1]. Errors in burn size estimation propagate downstream into the resuscitation, triage, and outcome-prediction pathways that depend on TBSA as input ^[3]. The accuracy of determining initial fluid rate has been shown to be low when the Parkland formula and Rule of Nines are applied from memory ^[21].

Three traditional methods dominate clinical practice. In a survey of 80 burn-care respondents, the preferred methods for burn-extent estimation were the Rule of Nines (38%), the Rule of Palm (37%), and the Lund-Browder chart (18%) ^[6]. A separate clinician-distribution survey found that 35% used the Rule of Nines, 33% used the Lund and Browder chart, 5.3% used Berkow's method, 3% used other methods, and 1.75% used a combination of Lund and Browder and the Rule of Nines ^[8]. Most burn centers rely on the Lund Browder chart and "rule of nines" to calculate the percent body surface area ^[13].

The clinical question is rarely "which method"; it is "how accurate is the chosen method in this patient's body habitus, and is the estimate likely to send the patient to the right resuscitation volume and the right level of care." Accumulated evidence on traditional methods documents systematic overestimation in small burns, large between-observer variance, and degraded accuracy in obesity, large-breasted women, and pediatric body proportions ^{[1][2][9][25]}. Digital tools — smartphone applications, 3D stereophotogrammetry, and machine-learning models — show higher accuracy and inter-rater reliability than paper methods in head-to-head comparisons, though most evidence remains observational and methodologically heterogeneous ^[15][16].

Methods¶

Rule of Nines¶

The Rule of Nines assigns 9% (or multiples of 9%) of the total body surface area to each major body region in adults. The technique requires the assessor to know and understand the proportionate areas of the body ^[26]. In comparative work that derived detailed BSA measurements from 163 adults, the Rule of Nines significantly overestimated the contribution of the head and arms to TBSA while underestimating the trunk and legs across all BMI groups ^[4]. The Rule of Nines is described as appropriate for estimation in a 14-study review of palm-area methods and Wallace's Rule of Nines, with palm-including-digits multiplied by 0.8 suitable for assessing minor burns less than 10% and Wallace's Rule of Nines advocated for larger burns ^[11].

Lund-Browder chart¶

The Lund-Browder chart subdivides the body into smaller regions and adjusts head and lower-extremity proportions for age, addressing the larger relative head size of children. The original chart was based on data derived from only three women and eight men ^[25]. Lund-Browder chart and Rule of Nines estimates fell outside the modern population's measured interquartile ranges for most body regions in a 3047-adult laser-body-scan dataset, indicating that the linear formulas underlying both charts — derived from a limited number of individuals a century ago — do not reflect the range of body habitus of the modern population ^[12].

Palmar surface methods¶

In small or scattered burns, the patient's palmar surface is used as a 1% TBSA reference ^[23]. A direct measurement study found that the area of the palm alone is 0.5% BSA in males and 0.4% BSA in females, whereas the area of the palm plus the palmar surface of the five digits is 0.8% BSA in males and 0.7% BSA in females ^[24]. If a hand alone is used to assess the size of a burn, the percent BSA could be overestimated ^[24]. Palm including digits multiplied by 0.8 is suitable for assessing minor (less than 10%) burns; for larger burns, Wallace's Rule of Nines is the method described as appropriate ^[11]. A thumbprint method has been described as a rapid means of accurately assessing hand burn surface area; the median thumbprint burn surface area in 16 hand burns was 1.5 thumbprints (range 0.20-80T), corresponding to 0.05% TBSA ^[20].

Surface-area equations as reference¶

Percent palmar surface area can be referenced against TBSA calculated by the Mosteller, DuBois-DuBois, Livingston and Scott, and Yu formulas; in 100 subjects (50 with BMI greater than 30, 50 with BMI less than 30), the percent palmar surface area ranged from 0.49% of TBSA at a BMI of 58.7 to 1.15% of TBSA at a BMI of 22.6, with statistically significant correlation between percent palmar surface area and BMI across all four formulas ^[23].

Accuracy and reliability¶

Traditional methods carry systematic overestimation bias and substantial inter-rater variability. In a poll-based study of burn experts, deviations of burn depth and size estimates reached up to 62% in relation to the mean value of all participants; in comparison to a computer-based method, overestimation of up to 161% was found ^[5]. A separate expert-panel study found massive overestimation of up to 230% on traditional paper-based assessments compared with a computer-aided method ^[6]. In a comparison of 44 burn professionals (senior burn surgeons, plastic surgery residents, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, senior registered nurses) using traditional paper-based tools versus five laymen using BurnCase 3D, the professionals showed a generalized significant overestimation of TBSA percent compared with the laymen's calculations of up to 198.5% ^[33].

In an academic emergency department co-located with a burn unit, the kappa coefficient for TBSA agreement between emergency physicians and the burn unit was 0.586 (weighted kappa 0.775), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.966; the authors of that study concluded that emergency physicians at academic institutions with co-located burn units are accurate estimators of TBSA in the assessment of burn injuries ^[22]. Sub-analysis showed mean over- and under-estimation differences of exact TBSA estimations of 3.93 and 2.93 percentage points, respectively ^[22].

A study of physician versus nurse estimates from drawings of 10 hypothetical patients found significant differences in mean burn size between physicians and nurses for only the two smallest drawings; for the six larger burn charts (greater than 20% body surface area), there were no differences in size estimates ^[8]. Across 100 samples of manikin-based burns ranging from 1% to more than 60% TBSA, computer-based WoundFlow burn mapping was as accurate as hand-mapped Lund-Browder, with no difference between the two methods on Bland-Altman analysis ^[27].

Pre-burn-center estimation¶

The largest single accuracy gap is at the pre-burn-center handoff. In a retrospective review of 326 transfers with recorded percent TBSA estimations from referring hospitals, 13 were underestimated, 63 were satisfactory, and 250 were overestimated; the ratio of overestimation to underestimation exceeded 19:1, and the ratio of overestimation to satisfactory estimation was nearly 4:1 (P less than 0.0001) ^[2]. Larger burns were more accurately estimated than smaller burns (P less than 0.0001) ^[2]. The authors of that study describe inaccuracy in burn size estimation as systemic and consequential for patient care and burn unit efficiency ^[2].

A meta-analysis of preburn-center care found that the pooled mean absolute error in percent total body surface area burn was 6.28 (95% CI 4.72-7.85); the average relative percent error in burn size estimation by referring providers ranged between 75% and 3500%; and the ratio of overestimation to underestimation in burn size ranged between 2.2:1 and 19:1 ^[3]. Over-estimation and over-delivery of fluid resuscitation volumes was prevalent in the same review ^[3]. In a separate retrospective cohort, retrieval physicians tended to overestimate total body surface area burned in comparison to destination burns units across both pre-hospital and inter-hospital transfer settings ^[32].

A consequence chain follows from these errors. Across 26 studies in a single systematic review, pervasive TBSA miscalculations ranging from 5% to 339% led to up to 77% of burns being inappropriately transferred to burn centers from referring hospitals ^[1]. The same review identified improper use of TBSA estimation tools (palm, hand, Rule of 9s) without considering patient body mass index, race, age, and sex standards as a major contributor to TBSA misestimation ^[1]. TBSA misestimation is associated with an increased incidence of inappropriate transfers to burn centers and the associated costs ^[1].

In a study surveying 72 residents and faculty applying the Parkland formula and Rule of Nines from memory, only 33% of surgeons and 17% of emergency medicine physicians were able to calculate the initial fluid rate correctly ^[21]. A pre-printed Burn Resuscitation Index visual aid raised correct calculation to 56% in surgeons and 77% in emergency medicine physicians ^[21].

Body habitus and obesity¶

The traditional charts assume a single linear-formula body proportion. In a 3047-adult laser-body-scan dataset from the Civilian American and European Surface Anthropometry Resource, wide individual variability was found in the extent to which major body regions contributed to percent TBSA, especially in the torso and legs ^[12]. Anterior torso percent TBSA increased with increasing body habitus (mean 15.1% to 19.1% in males; 15.1% to 18.0% in females) ^[12]. The Lund-Browder chart and Rule of Nines estimates fell outside the population's measured interquartile ranges for most body regions ^[12].

In a study of 200 obese adults using three-dimensional whole-body scanning, the average surface area of the torso, arms, and legs differed from the non-obese population: in obese patients, the torso comprised 52%, the arms 7%, and the legs 15% of total body surface area, compared with 36%, 9%, and 18% in the non-obese population ^[17]. The authors of that study described a "rule of sevens" as a more appropriate method for estimating BSA in the morbidly obese patient ^[17]. In a complementary study of 163 adults, the Rule of Nines overestimated the contribution of the head and arms while underestimating the trunk and legs across all BMI groups; a proposed alternative assigns 5% to the head, 15% to the arms, and varies the trunk-to-legs split (35/45% for normal-weight, 40/40% for obese, 45/35% for morbidly obese) ^[4].

The percent palmar surface area also varies with BMI. The palmar surface area ranged between 0.59% and 1.22% of TBSA depending on BMI, gender, and ethnicity, compared to 1% under conventional teaching ^[9]. The palmar surface area of obese individuals approximated 0.7% of total body surface area in Caucasians ^[9]. The surface areas comprised 5%-7.5% of TBSA for each arm, 15%-20% for each leg, and 40%-52% for the trunk in obese or morbidly obese individuals, compared to 9%, 18%, and 36% respectively for normal-weight adults ^[9]. Across 100 subjects with BMI distributed above and below 30, percent palmar surface area showed a statistically significant correlation with BMI across all four standard surface-area formulas ^[23]. Authors of that work note that the percent palmar surface area should not be assumed to be 1% of TBSA, especially in obese patients ^[23]. The commonly used methods for assessment of burns are described as warranting caution when applied to obese burn patients, with clinical parameters observed even more systematically ^[9].

Pediatric considerations¶

The pediatric chest, head, and lower-extremity proportions differ from adults, which is the design rationale for the Lund-Browder chart's age-adjusted columns. Even with age adjustment, accuracy remains a problem. Of 71 pediatric patients referred to a burn unit, 10 had no documented TBSA estimation; among the 61 with documented estimates, inaccurate estimation of burn area was noted in 48 (79%) ^[10]. Burn size was more likely to be overestimated than underestimated by a ratio of 2.2 to 1, especially in burns greater than 10% TBSA (P=0.002) ^[10]. The authors of that study attributed the persistent miscalculation of burn size in children to the various methods employed in assessing burn area, the inclusion of simple erythema, and inadequate training or exposure of first responders ^[10]. Accurate assessment of TBSA-burned and burn depth in children is described in that work as elusive and as requiring additional training and education ^[10].

Inter-rater work in a mixed pediatric-and-adult validation study of three modalities (paper Lund-Browder, Mersey Burns App, e-burn App) found that burns-naive participants demonstrated higher means in both test patients and greater variance in TBSA estimation; both Mersey Burns and e-burn reduced the risk of human error particularly from untrained or non-specialized clinicians, with e-burn proving more favorable in that study ^[18]. Two-way ANOVA analysis showed a statistically significant interaction between level of experience and use of applications on TBSA estimation in larger burns ^[18]. The Mersey Burns App has been compared head-to-head with paper Lund-Browder for clinicians and medical students; the clinician study showed lower variance in TBSA and fluid calculations using the app (P less than 0.05); mean time to completion was faster and calculations more likely to be correct with the app (P less than 0.001) ^[19].

Special populations: female chest and breast burns¶

Lund-Browder underestimates chest burns in large-breasted women. The original Lund-Browder chart was derived from data on only three women and eight men ^[25]. In a study of 60 volunteers (20 men, 20 small-breasted women, 20 large-breasted women), torso surface area to total body surface area ratio did not vary significantly between groups, but the proportion of anterior to posterior trunk size depended on sex and breast size ^[25]. The authors of that study describe breast burns in larger-breasted women as underestimated when calculated using current burn charts, and they recommend that a correction be made when estimating chest burns in women to account for the increased surface area of the breasts ^[25].

Pre-hospital settings¶

Serial halving has been endorsed by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh as a rapid pre-hospital method, dividing the body burn into halves to triangulate the percentage. In a study of 125 emergency-services and military paramedical staff assessing 10 simulated casualties, no statistical difference was demonstrated between serial halving and the Rule of Nines as an initial assessment tool when determining disposal ^[26]. The Rule of Nines requires that the assessor knows and understands the proportionate areas of the body; the mathematics of percentages and fractions appeared to confuse some assessors in that study ^[26].

A review of 14 studies covering palm-area methods and Wallace's Rule of Nines found that variation in accuracy is accountable to expertise, experience, and patient body type, and that current technology and smartphone applications are described as attempting to counter this ^[11]. Wallace's Rule of Nines was found to be an appropriate method of estimation in that review ^[11].

Digital tools and 3D systems¶

Digital and computer-aided systems show consistent accuracy and reliability advantages over paper methods in head-to-head comparison. Two-dimensional web-based programs (Sage II) and three-dimensional computer-aided design programs (EPRI 3D Burn Vision) have been compared in burn-team usability work; the authors of that work describe computer-aided methods as offering the potential for improved precision and data analysis of percent BSA measurements ^[13].

In direct comparisons against paper methods, BurnCase 3D produced statistically significant differences from conventional Lund-Browder estimation. Across 19 burned patients with estimated TBSA of 20% or more, partial-thickness burns calculated using Lund and Browder diagrams were significantly larger than those calculated using BurnCase 3D (15% difference, P less than 0.01); the opposite pattern emerged for full-thickness burns, where Lund and Browder estimates were 11% smaller (P less than 0.05) ^[7]. In that study, paper diagrams were associated with overestimation of partial-thickness burn size and underestimation of full-thickness burn size ^[7]. A separate BurnCase 3D study reported that the program underestimated percent TBSA by 1.3% compared to conventional methods (P=0.007); the authors characterize this difference as statistically significant but not clinically meaningful given minimal impact on fluid resuscitation and on the decision to transfer a patient to a burn unit ^[14]. The same authors describe 3D percent TBSA evaluation systems as valid tools to estimate percent TBSA, with consideration warranted to improve estimation at centers without an experienced burn staff surgeon ^[14]. The Mersey Burns App can facilitate quicker and more accurate calculations than Lund and Browder charts in the clinician and student populations studied ^[19].

A 2025 systematic review of 20 studies (2006-2023) evaluating 16 unique digital tools found that digital tools demonstrated superior accuracy over traditional methods (mean error: digital -5.47% to +4%; traditional -0.47% to +19.7%); EasyTBSA achieved the closest agreement to the established reference at -0.01 ± 3.59% compared with Lund and Browder at 4.42 ± 5.52%, Rule of Palms at 3.92 ± 10.71%, and Rule of Nines at 5.05 ± 6.87% ^[16]. Digital tools demonstrated higher inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.986-0.998 versus 0.886-0.910 for traditional methods) ^[16]. Time-to-estimation varied across digital platforms without a consistent advantage over traditional methods ^[16].

A 2025 systematic review of 36 studies of emerging TBSA technologies grouped tools into 3D programs (n=7), mobile applications (n=11), 3D stereophotogrammetry (n=8), and machine learning models (n=10); 3D stereophotogrammetry showed the highest accuracy (mean ICC 0.988) and excellent inter-rater reliability (ICC 0.989); 3D programs demonstrated good diagnostic performance and reduced variability; mobile applications improved accuracy and consistency, particularly among non-specialists, and offered practical benefits in prehospital settings; machine learning, though largely in experimental phases, demonstrated promising accuracy with some models outperforming clinician estimates ^[15]. The authors of that review noted that overall most studies were of low quality and methodologically heterogeneous, so definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn ^[15].

ImageJ has been investigated as a high-precision computer-assisted estimation method for large surface burns. In 37 patients, the mean TBSA evaluated by ImageJ was 36.81%, statistically significantly lower than estimations made by a consultant plastic surgeon (41% mean TBSA, P=0.008) and referring emergency doctors (50.97% mean TBSA, P less than 0.0001) ^[28]. There was no statistically significant correlation between the ImageJ estimation and a smartphone application (E-burn 1.0.0) at 37.84% mean TBSA (P=0.1225) ^[28].

Machine-learning systems¶

Machine-learning approaches to TBSA estimation are at the experimental edge of the literature. A 2015 review identified 15 retrospective observational studies in burn care covering 5,105 patients and 171 clinical burn wounds; 11 of 15 studies used artificial neural networks, all studies demonstrated benefits of machine learning in burn care or research, and machine learning showed superior performance over traditional statistical methods ^[29]. Machine-learning-based TBSA tools require further validation in prospective observational studies and randomized clinical trials, establishment of common performance metrics, and high-quality evidence about clinical and economic impacts ^[29].

A 2021 systematic review of 30 machine-learning-and-burn studies found that nine studies used machine learning and automation to estimate percent TBSA burned; models calculating percent TBSA burned demonstrated accuracies comparable to or better than paper methods, while burn-depth classification models achieved accuracies greater than 83% ^[30]. A separate work proposing a deep-learning framework based on Adaptive Complex Independent Components Analysis and a Reference Region (TBSA) approach reported 96.7% accuracy on a recurrent-neural-network model for combined burn-depth and TBSA estimation ^[31].

Controversies and Evidence Gaps¶

Whether modernizing the underlying body-proportion data should retire the Rule of Nines and Lund-Browder. Lund-Browder chart and Rule of Nines estimates fell outside the modern population's measured interquartile ranges for most body regions in a 3047-adult laser-body-scan dataset, and the underlying linear formulas were derived from a limited number of individuals a century ago ^[12]. Whether the right answer is a habitus-corrected paper chart, a habitus-stratified digital tool, or full replacement by 3D capture is unsettled.

Whether digital tools displace paper methods at the point of care. The 2025 systematic review of 20 studies of 16 digital tools concluded that findings suggest digital tools offer measurable improvements in accuracy and reliability over conventional methods, warranting consideration for broader clinical integration as digital health technologies continue to advance ^[16]. The 2025 review of 36 studies of emerging technologies concluded that most studies were of low quality and methodologically heterogeneous, so definitive conclusions cannot yet be drawn ^[15]. The signal points toward digital tools; the evidence quality remains observational and heterogeneous.

Where the palmar method's "1%" rule applies and where it fails. The palm including digits represents 0.8% BSA in males and 0.7% BSA in females on direct measurement ^[24], and ranges between 0.59% and 1.22% of TBSA depending on BMI, gender, and ethnicity ^[9]. Whether the simple "palm equals 1%" teaching is retained, revised to 0.8%, or stratified by body habitus is contested.

Whether referring-hospital TBSA estimates are re-calculated at the burn unit before triage decisions. The over-to-under-estimation ratio at referral exceeds 19:1 ^[2], the meta-analytic mean absolute error is 6.28 percentage points ^[3], and inappropriate transfers reach up to 77% ^[1]. A systematic approach with telemedicine-facilitated computer-based burn assessments has been advocated ^[1], though adoption is not standardized.

Whether TBSA misestimation drives clinically meaningful fluid-resuscitation errors. The available data are limited; few studies with limited sample sizes argue that TBSA misestimations significantly affect fluid resuscitation volume, with findings suggesting that small burns (less than 20% TBSA) are over-estimated and over-resuscitated, the opposite of larger burns ^[1]. Comparable accuracy and reliability data on the link from estimation error to actual fluid-volume error to actual outcome remain thin.

Whether breast-corrected charts for adult female chest burns become standard. The original Lund-Browder chart was derived from data on only three women and eight men ^[25], and a bra-cup-size-based correction chart has been derived from a 60-volunteer measurement study ^[25]. Adoption is not standardized.

Whether thumbprint mapping for hand burns yields actionable resolution gain. The thumbprint method described 16 hand burns at finer resolution than rule-of-1% recording; whether the added precision changes management or outcomes is not addressed by the cited evidence base ^[20].

References¶

[1] Pham C, Collier Z, Gillenwater J. "Changing the Way We Think About Burn Size Estimation." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 30247559. ↩

[2] Armstrong JR, Willand L, Gonzalez B, Sandhu J, Mosier MJ. "Quantitative Analysis of Estimated Burn Size Accuracy for Transfer Patients." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2017. PMID: 28009696. ↩

[3] Harshman J, Roy M, Cartotto R. "Emergency Care of the Burn Patient Before the Burn Center: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 30452685. ↩

[4] Neaman KC, Andres LA, McClure AM, Burton ME, Kemmeter PR, Ford RD. "A new method for estimation of involved BSAs for obese and normal-weight patients with burn injury." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2011. PMID: 21562463. ↩

[5] Giretzlehner M, Dirnberger J, Owen R, Haller HL, Lumenta DB, Kamolz LP. "The determination of total burn surface area: How much difference?." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2013. PMID: 23566430. ↩

[6] Parvizi D, Giretzlehner M, Dirnberger J, Owen R, Haller HL, Schintler MV, et al. "The use of telemedicine in burn care: development of a mobile system for TBSA documentation and remote assessment." Annals of burns and fire disasters 2014. PMID: 26170783. ↩

[7] Benjamin NC, Lee JO, Norbury WB, Branski LK, Wurzer P, Jimenez CJ, et al. "Accuracy of Currently Used Paper Burn Diagram vs a Three-Dimensional Computerized Model." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2017. PMID: 27294858. ↩

[8] Miller SF, Finley RK, Waltman M, Lincks J. "Burn size estimate reliability: a study." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1991. PMID: 1779009. ↩

[9] Borhani-Khomani K, Partoft S, Holmgaard R. "Assessment of burn size in obese adults; a literature review." Journal of plastic surgery and hand surgery 2017. PMID: 28417654. ↩

[10] Chan QE, Barzi F, Cheney L, Harvey JG, Holland AJ. "Burn size estimation in children: still a problem." Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA 2012. PMID: 22487668. ↩

[11] Thom D. "Appraising current methods for preclinical calculation of burn size - A pre-hospital perspective." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 27575669. ↩

[12] Choi J, Patil A, Vendrow E, Touponse G, Aboukhater L, Forrester JD, et al. "Practical Computer Vision Application to Compute Total Body Surface Area Burn: Reappraising a Fundamental Burn Injury Formula in the Modern Era." JAMA surgery 2022. PMID: 34817552. ↩

[13] Neuwalder JM, Sampson C, Breuing KH, Orgill DP. "A review of computer-aided body surface area determination: SAGE II and EPRI's 3D Burn Vision." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2002. PMID: 11803314. ↩

[14] Retrouvey H, Chan J, Shahrokhi S. "Comparison of two-dimensional methods versus three-dimensional scanning systems in the assessment of total body surface area estimation in burn patients." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2018. PMID: 28797577. ↩

[15] Woods A, Tan P, Mertz T, Lewis CJ. "Advancements in burn size assessment: A systematic review of emerging technologies." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2026. PMID: 41297237. ↩

[16] Tiwari S, Pradhan A, Koh E, Solanki NS, Wagstaff MJD, Concannon E. "Comparative accuracy and inter-rater reliability of digital tools for burn surface area estimation: A systematic review." Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS 2026. PMID: 41966915. ↩

[17] Williams RY, Wohlgemuth SD. "Does the 'rule of nines' apply to morbidly obese burn victims?." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2013. PMID: 23702858. ↩

[18] Chong HP, Quinn L, Jeeves A, Cooksey R, Lodge M, Carney B, et al. "A comparison study of methods for estimation of a burn surface area: Lund and Browder, e-burn and Mersey Burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2020. PMID: 31561927. ↩

[19] Barnes J, Duffy A, Hamnett N, McPhail J, Seaton C, Shokrollahi K, et al. "The Mersey Burns App: evolving a model of validation." Emergency medicine journal : EMJ 2015. PMID: 25371408. ↩

[20] Dargan D, Adjei B, Shokrollahi K. "A Rule of Thumb for Hand Burns: Categorization and Mapping of Proportional Surface Area Involvement." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2020. PMID: 32232333. ↩

[21] Kahn SA, Schoemann M, Lentz CW. "Burn resuscitation index: a simple method for calculating fluid resuscitation in the burn patient." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2010. PMID: 20489651. ↩

[22] Yoo MJ, Pawlukiewicz AJ, Wray JP, Long BJ, Hunter CJ. "Interrater Agreement and Reliability of Burn Size Estimations Between Emergency Physicians and Burn Unit." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2021. PMID: 33306109. ↩

[23] Butz DR, Collier Z, O'Connor A, Magdziak M, Gottlieb LJ. "Is palmar surface area a reliable tool to estimate burn surface areas in obese patients?." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2015. PMID: 25159556. ↩

[24] Rossiter ND, Chapman P, Haywood IA. "How big is a hand?." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 1996. PMID: 8726264. ↩

[25] Hidvegi N, Nduka C, Myers S, Dziewulski P. "Estimation of breast burn size." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 2004. PMID: 15114118. ↩

[26] Smith JJ, Malyon AD, Scerri GV, Burge TS. "A comparison of serial halving and the rule of nines as a pre-hospital assessment tool in burns." British journal of plastic surgery 2005. PMID: 16040012. ↩

[27] Williams JF, King BT, Aden JK, Serio-Melvin M, Chung KK, Fenrich CA, et al. "Comparison of traditional burn wound mapping with a computerized program." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2013. PMID: 23292593. ↩

[28] Bucher F, Dastagir N, Tamulevicius M, Obed D, Dieck T, Vogt PM, et al. "High-precision computer-assisted surface area estimation in large surface burn patients using ImageJ - A comparative analysis." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 40318594. ↩

[29] Liu NT, Salinas J. "Machine learning in burn care and research: A systematic review of the literature." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2015. PMID: 26233900. ↩

[30] Huang S, Dang J, Sheckter CC, Yenikomshian HA, Gillenwater J. "A systematic review of machine learning and automation in burn wound evaluation: A promising but developing frontier." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2021. PMID: 34419331. ↩

[31] Rangaiah PKB, Kumar BPP, Huss F, Augustine R. "Precision diagnosis of burn injuries using imaging and predictive modeling for clinical applications." Scientific reports 2025. PMID: 40038450. ↩

[32] Hall K, Burns B. "A review of the burns caseload of a physician-based helicopter emergency medical service." Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA 2017. PMID: 28571104. ↩

[33] Tocco-Tussardi I, Presman B, Huss F. "Want Correct Percentage of TBSA Burned? Let a Layman Do the Assessment." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2018. PMID: 28877135. ↩