Cellulitis in the Emergency Department: A prospective cohort study with patient‐centred follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is substantial practice variation in the management of cellulitis with limited prospective studies describing the course of cellulitis after diagnosis. We aimed to describe the demographics, clinical features (erythema, warmth, swelling and pain), patient-reported disease trajectory and medium-term follow-up for ED patients with cellulitis. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study of adults diagnosed with cellulitis in two EDs in Southeast Queensland, Australia. Patients with (peri)orbital cellulitis and abscess were excluded. Data were obtained from a baseline questionnaire, electronic medical records and follow-up questionnaires at 3, 7 and 14 days. Clinician adjudication of day 14 cellulitis cure was compared to patient assessment. Descriptive analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Three-hundred patients (mean age 50 years, SD 19.9) with cellulitis were enrolled, predominantly affecting the lower limb (75%). Cellulitis features showed greatest improvement between enrolment and day 3. Clinical improvement continued gradually at days 7 and 14 with persistent skin erythema (41%) and swelling (37%) at day 14. Skin warmth was the feature most likely to be resolved at each time point. There was a discrepancy in clinician and patient assessment of cellulitis cure at day 14 (85.8% vs. 52.8% cured). CONCLUSIONS: A clinical response of cellulitis features can be expected at day 3 with ongoing slower improvement over time. Over one third of patients had erythema or swelling at day 14. Patients are less likely than clinicians to deem their cellulitis cured at day 14. Future research should include parallel patient and clinician evaluation of cellulitis to help develop clearer definitions of treatment failure and cure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".