Paul van Zuijlen

Prof. Dr. Paul van Zuijlen

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

29Years (1998-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 June 2004 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LDLieneke J. Draaijers
Lieneke J. Draaijers
FTFenike R. H. Tempelman
Fenike R. H. Tempelman
YBYvonne A. M. Botman
Yvonne A. M. Botman
WTWim E. Tuinebreijer
Wim E. Tuinebreijer
EMEsther Middelkoop
Esther Middelkoop
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen
At present, various scar assessment scales are available, but not one has been shown to be reliable, consistent, feasible, and valid at the same time. Furthermore, the existing scar assessment scales appear to attach little weight to the opinion of the patient. The newly developed Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale consists of two numeric scales: the Patient Scar Assessment Scale (patient scale) and the Observer Scar Assessment Scale (observer scale). The patient and observer scales have to be completed by the patient and the observer, respectively. The patient scale's consistency and the observer scale's consistency, reliability, and feasibility were tested. For the Vancouver Scar Scale, which is the most frequently used scar assessment scale at present, the same statistical measurements were examined and the results of the observer scale and the Vancouver scale were compared. The concurrent validity of the observer scale was tested with a correlation to the Vancouver scale. Furthermore, the authors examined which specific characteristics significantly influence the general opinion of the patient and the observers on the scar areas. Four independent observers have each used the observer scale and the Vancouver scale to assess 49 burn scar areas of 3 × 3 cm belonging to 20 different patients. Subsequently, the patients completed the patient scale for their scar areas. The (internal) consistency of both the patient and the observer scales was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha, 0.76 and 0.69, respectively), whereas the consistency of the Vancouver scale appeared not to be acceptable (alpha, 0.49). The reliability of the observer scale completed by a single observer was acceptable (r = 0.73). The reliability of the Vancouver scale completed by a single observer was lower (r = 0.69). The observer scale showed better agreement than the Vancouver scale because the coefficient of variation was lower (18 percent and 22 percent, respectively). The concurrent validity of the observer scale in relation to the Vancouver scale is high (r = 0.89, p < 0.001). Linear regression of the general opinions on scars of the observer and the patient showed that the observer's opinion is influenced by vascularization, thickness, pigmentation, and relief, whereas the patient's opinion is mainly influenced by itching and the thickness of the scar. Such an impact of itching and thickness of the scar on the patient's opinion is an important and novel finding. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale offers a suitable, reliable, and complete scar evaluation tool.

1 August 2005 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AKAnnekatrien L. van de Kar
Annekatrien L. van de Kar
LCLeonard U. M. Corion
Leonard U. M. Corion
MSMark J. C. Smeulders
Mark J. C. Smeulders
LDLieneke J. Draaijers
Lieneke J. Draaijers
CHChantal M. A. M. van der Horst
Chantal M. A. M. van der Horst
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen
Although scar evaluation tools are necessary for an evidence-based approach to scar management, there is as yet no generally accepted tool. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale was developed recently and found to be a useful subjective evaluation tool for burn scars. The authors tested the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale on linear scars, the largest category of surgical scars. One hundred linear surgical scars were assessed by three independent observers using the observer scale to evaluate vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, relief, pliability, and surface area. The patients evaluated their scars simultaneously and 2 weeks later using the patient scale for the following parameters: pain, itching, color, stiffness, thickness, and relief. The internal consistency of the observer and patient scales was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.86 and 0.90, respectively). The reliability of the observer scale was good for the total score (r = 0.96, p < 0.001) and separate items (r > 0.86, p < 0.001) for three observers. Even a single observer evaluated scars reliably with respect to the total score (r = 0.88, p < 0.001) and the items vascularity, pigmentation, thickness, and surface area (r > 0.70, p < 0.001). The patient’s intraobserver reliability was good for the total score (r = 0.94, p < 0.001) and separate items (r > 0.89, p < 0.001). The coefficient of variation of the total score was 10.4 percent for the observer scale and 15.8 percent for the patient scale, indicating good agreement. The Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale is an appropriate subjective tool for the evaluation of linear scars.

1 August 2016 in Burns
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ICISBI Practice Guidelines Committee
ISBI Practice Guidelines Committee
RARajeev B. Ahuja
Rajeev B. Ahuja
NGNicole Gibran
Nicole Gibran
DGDavid Greenhalgh
David Greenhalgh
JJJames Jeng
James Jeng
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen

1 February 2009 in Burns
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
WVWillem M. van der Veer
Willem M. van der Veer
MBMonica C.T. Bloemen
Monica C.T. Bloemen
MUMagda M.W. Ulrich
Magda M.W. Ulrich
GMGrietje Molema
Grietje Molema
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen
FNFrank B. Niessen
Frank B. Niessen

10 September 2009 in Wound Repair and Regeneration
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PVPauline D. H. M. Verhaegen
Pauline D. H. M. Verhaegen
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen
NPNoor M. Pennings
Noor M. Pennings
JMJan Van Marle
Jan Van Marle
FNFrank B. Niessen
Frank B. Niessen
EMEsther Middelkoop
Esther Middelkoop

1 June 2009 in Burns
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MBMonica C.T. Bloemen
Monica C.T. Bloemen
WVWillem M. van der Veer
Willem M. van der Veer
MUMagda M.W. Ulrich
Magda M.W. Ulrich
PZPaul van Zuijlen
Paul van Zuijlen
FNFrank B. Niessen
Frank B. Niessen
EMEsther Middelkoop
Esther Middelkoop