↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of concurrent deep vein thrombosis in patients with lower limb cellulitis: a prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Prevalence of concurrent deep vein thrombosis in patients with lower limb cellulitis: a prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-141
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Lower limb cellulitis and deep vein thrombosis share clinical features and investigation of patients with cellulitis for concurrent DVT is common. The prevalence of DVT in this group is uncertain. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in patients with lower limb cellulitis and to investigate the utility of applying the Wells algorithm to this patient group.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 16%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 April 2026.
All research outputs
#9,879,820
of 32,485,576 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,450
of 10,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,791
of 235,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#46
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,485,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,102 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 235,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.