ArticleBMJ open2026
Unmet needs in cellulitis diagnosis: a qualitative interview study to understand healthcare professionals' knowledge and experiences.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of diagnosing cellulitis, identify unmet diagnostic needs and determine the desirable characteristics of an ideal diagnostic test.
designQualitative study using semistructured interviews, analysed thematically.
settingCommunity and secondary care services across the UK from January 2023 to September 2023.
participants25 UK-based HCPs (eg. nurses, paramedics, pharmacists, general practitioners and hospital physicians) with recent experience of managing cellulitis. Inclusion required recent involvement in cellulitis care; no specific exclusion criteria were applied. All participants completed the interview.
resultsFour major themes were identified. Theme 1 described patient and disease characteristics that make diagnosis difficult, including atypical or recurrent presentations, high-risk patients, pre-existing wounds or ulcers, darker skin tones and prior antibiotic use, which represented specific use cases in which a test could be deployed. Theme 2 highlighted clinician and patient behaviours contributing to misdiagnosis, including reliance on cellulitis as the 'default' diagnosis, limited dermatology/tissue viability knowledge and access, risks of not treating and patient expectations. Theme 3 examined candidate diagnostic aids (evaluated in early studies) and ideas for novel diagnostic tools, noting that current tools are insufficiently specific, while enthusiasm for new technologies was countered by concerns about usability, comfort, infection control and training needs. Theme 4 identified key characteristics of an ideal test: portable, rapid, equitable, usable across community and hospital settings and providing a probabilistic result rather than a binary outcome.
conclusionsCellulitis remains diagnostically challenging across multiple care settings. Developing tools that can distinguish patients who genuinely require antibiotic therapy from those with non-infective inflammation would be particularly valuable. The greatest potential for impact lies in improving diagnostic specificity to reduce misdiagnosis, unnecessary antibiotic use and avoidable healthcare attendance and admission. Broad engagement of stakeholders will be essential to define acceptable performance parameters and guide novel technology development.
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.