↓ Skip to main content

Necrotizing fasciitis: an urgent diagnosis

Overview of attention for article published in Skeletal Radiology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
Necrotizing fasciitis: an urgent diagnosis
Published in
Skeletal Radiology, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00256-013-1813-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Paz Maya, Delfina Dualde Beltrán, Pierre Lemercier, Carlos Leiva-Salinas

Abstract

Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a rare, life-threatening soft-tissue infection and a medical and surgical emergency, with increasing incidence in the last few years. It is characterized by a rapidly spreading, progressive necrosis of the deep fascia and subcutaneous tissue. Necrotizing fasciitis is often underestimated because of the lack of specific clinical findings in the initial stages of the disease. Many adjuncts such as laboratory findings, bedside tests--e.g., the "finger test" or biopsy--and imaging tests have been described as being helpful in the early recognition of the disease. Imaging is very useful to confirm the diagnosis, but also to assess the extent of the disorder, the potential surgical planning, and the detection of underlying etiologies. The presence of gas within the necrotized fasciae is characteristic, but may be lacking. The main finding is thickening of the deep fasciae due to fluid accumulation and reactive hyperemia, best seen on magnetic resonance imaging.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 126 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 15 11%
Other 11 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 11 8%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 34 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,310,355
of 23,305,591 outputs
Outputs from Skeletal Radiology
#73
of 1,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,554
of 310,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Skeletal Radiology
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,305,591 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,887 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.