↓ Skip to main content

Complications of Decorative Tattoos: Recognition and Management

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Complications of Decorative Tattoos: Recognition and Management
Published in
American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s40257-014-0100-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carolina Simunovic, Michi M. Shinohara

Abstract

Tattooing is an ancient practice that enjoys continued popularity. Although a modern, professionally performed tattoo is generally safe, complications can occur. A skin biopsy of all tattoo reactions is recommended as some tattoo reactions have systemic implications. Tattoo-related infections are seen days to decades after tattooing, and range from acute pyogenic infections to cutaneous tuberculosis. In particular, non-tuberculous mycobacterial infections happen in tattoos with increasing frequency and are introduced at the time of tattooing through contaminated ink or water used to dilute inks. Despite a transition in tattoo pigments from metal salts to industrial azo dyes, hypersensitivity reactions also persist, and include eczematous, granulomatous, lichenoid, and pseudoepitheliomatous patterns (among others). Granulomatous tattoo reactions can be a clue to cutaneous or systemic sarcoidosis, particularly in the setting of interferon use. Pseudoepitheliomatous tattoo reactions have substantial overlap with squamous cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma, making diagnosis and management difficult. Other malignancies and their benign mimics can occur in tattoos, raising questions about the safety of tattoo ink and its role in carcinogenesis.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 14%
Unspecified 4 11%
Other 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 50%
Unspecified 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 6 17%

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 13 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,509,484
of 13,039,285 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#141
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,721
of 221,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Clinical Dermatology
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,039,285 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 221,154 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.