↓ Skip to main content

Cutaneous Intravascular NK/T-cell lymphoma mimic panniculitis clinically, case report and literature brief review

Overview of attention for article published in Diagnostic Pathology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 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.
Title
Cutaneous Intravascular NK/T-cell lymphoma mimic panniculitis clinically, case report and literature brief review
Published in
Diagnostic Pathology, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13000-015-0330-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ahmed Alhumidi

Abstract

Intravascular large cell lymphoma is a rare subtype of extranodal large cell lymphoma characterized by the presence of neoplastic cells within the lumina of small vessels. Most cases of intravascular large cell lymphoma have a B-cell phenotype. To date, 12 cases of intravascular natural killer (NK/)/T-cell lymphoma (IVNKL) have been reported. Our case is A 47-year-old female presented with erythematous patches and plaques on the lower extremities mimicking panniculitis clinically. A skin biopsy revealed intravascular lymphoma (IVL) with a NK/T cell phenotype (positive for CD3, and granzyme B and negative for CD20, CD4, CD8, CD5). The lymphoma cells were also positive for Epstein-Barr virus by Epstein-Barr virus-encoded RNA in situ hybridization test. Because this type of lymphoma is extremely rare, our case is documented and compared with the previously reported cases.

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 readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 25%
Researcher 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 1 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 67%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Unknown 3 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 April 2020.
All research outputs
#5,542,081
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Diagnostic Pathology
#125
of 1,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,574
of 262,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Diagnostic Pathology
#12
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,126 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 262,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.