ArticleBMJ open2020
An interview study to determine the experiences of cellulitis diagnosis amongst health care professionals in the UK.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmet needs in cellulitis diagnosis: a qualitative interview study to understand healthcare professionals' knowledge and experiences.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Practice and community nurses' views and experiences of helping people manage risk factors for recurrent lower limb cellulitis: A qualitative interview study.Skin health and disease · 2024Article
- Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy with Infrared Thermography for Accurate Prediction of Cellulitis.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2021Article
- Article
- Healthcare Practitioners' Knowledge of Lymphedema.International journal of vascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore healthcare professionals (HCPs) experiences and challenges in diagnosing suspected lower limb cellulitis.
settingUK nationwide.
participants20 qualified HCPs, who had a minimum of 2 years clinical experience as an HCP in the national health service and had managed a clinical case of suspected cellulitis of the lower limb in the UK. HCPs were recruited from departments of dermatology (including a specialist cellulitis clinic), general practice, tissue viability, lymphoedema services, general surgery, emergency care and acute medicine. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that participants included consultant doctors, trainee doctors and nurses across the specialties listed above. Participants were recruited through national networks, HCPs who contributed to the cellulitis priority setting partnership, UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network, snowball sampling where participants helped recruit other participants and personal networks of the authors. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcome was to describe the key clinical features which inform the diagnosis of lower limb cellulitis. Secondary outcome was to explore the difficulties in making a diagnosis of lower limb cellulitis.
resultsThe presentation of lower limb cellulitis changes as the episode runs its course. Therefore, different specialties see clinical features at varying stages of cellulitis. Clinical experience is essential to being confident in making a diagnosis, but even among experienced HCPs, there were differences in the clinical rationale of diagnosis. A group of core clinical features were suggested, many of which overlapped with alternative diagnoses. This emphasises how the diagnosis is challenging, with objective aids and a greater understanding of the mimics of cellulitis required.
conclusionCellulitis is a complex diagnosis and has a variable clinical presentation at different stages. Although cellulitis is a common diagnosis to make, HCPs need to be mindful of alternative diagnoses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.