ArticleTherapeutics and clinical risk management2016
Comparison of classical diagnostic criteria and Chinese revised diagnostic criteria for fever of unknown origin in Chinese patients.
Article in Therapeutics and clinical risk management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Onco-mNGS facilitates rapid and precise identification of the etiology of fever of unknown origin: a single-centre prospective study in North China.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Application of Machine Learning for the Prediction of Etiological Types of Classic Fever of Unknown Origin.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFever of unknown origin (FUO) has always been a challenging problem for physicians since it was first reported half a century ago. This study aimed to investigate the clinical features of FUO and to compare the clinical significance of the classical diagnostic criteria and the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria of FUO.
methodsWe retrospectively collected a series of 140 patients admitted to our hospital between September 2011 and June 2013 because of prolonged febrile illnesses (lasting at least 2 weeks, temperature ≥38.5°C) without diagnosis and categorized them into two groups according to the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria (group A) and classical diagnostic criteria (group B) for FUO. The A group included patients presenting with fever persisting between 2 and 3 weeks with the diagnosis remaining uncertain after three outpatient visits or at least 3 days of hospital investigation. The B group included patients presenting with fever persisting for more than 3 weeks with no established diagnosis after 1 week of hospital investigation. The general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods of the two groups were compared.
resultsThere were no significant differences in the general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods between the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria and classical diagnostic criteria.
conclusionBoth the examined FUO diagnostic criteria are suitable for clinical practice in this region.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.