Review A guide to choosing a burn scar rating scale for clinical or research use Zephanie Tyack a,b, *, Jason Wasiak c , Anneliese Spinks d,e , Roy Kimble f,g , Megan Simons f,h a Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia b School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia c Victorian Adult Burns Service and School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia d Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Ecosystem Sciences Division, Queensland, Australia e School of Medicine, Griffith University, Meadowbrook, Queensland, Australia f Centre for Childrens Burns and Trauma Research, Queensland Children’s Medical Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia g Department of Paediatrics and Child Health ¸ Level 3 Foundation Building, Royal Children’s Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia h Department of Occupational Therapy, Royal Children’s Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia b u r n s 3 9 ( 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 4 1 – 1 3 5 0 a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Accepted 23 April 2013 Keywords: Burn scar rating measure Scar assessment Clinimetric quality Burn Outcome measure a b s t r a c t Introduction: A lack of high quality burn scar rating scales underpins the urgent need to introduce a guide for clinicians and researchers to choose the most appropriate scale for their requirements. Methods: An updated electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE databases from 2010 to 2011 of a previous published systematic review were used to identify English articles related to burn scar rating scales. The clinimetric properties, content, purpose, character- istics of the subjects tested and feasibility of each scale were critically reviewed. Results: An additional seven papers were identified by the updated search, bringing the total number of papers reviewed to 36. The majority (88%) covered items pertaining to the physical properties of the skin rated by an observer. All of the scales had been tested for the purpose of discriminating between patient groups; however, only preliminary evidence exists for the ability of the scales to measure change in scar properties over time. The majority of testing of scales occurred using Caucasian subjects, males, upper limb sites and adults. Conclusions: This paper provides a guide to selecting the most appropriate burn scar rating scale for research and clinical practice by reviewing the content, purpose, test sample characteristics and feasibility of each scale. Crown Copyright # 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author at: Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia. Tel.: +61 749 20 7396; fax: +61 749 20 6539. E-mail address: Zephanie_Tyack@health.qld.gov.au (Z. Tyack). Available online at www.sciencedirect.com journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/burns 0305-4179/$36.00 . Crown Copyright # 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2013.04.021