ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2022
The Effective Management of Fever in Pediatrics and Insights on Remote Management: Experts' Consensus Using a Delphi Approach.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Even after the publication of the 2017 update of Italian guidelines on treatment of fever in pediatrics, some fundamental questions are still open and new ones emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To assess the level of consensus among Italian pediatricians on different topics related to treatment of fever in children by using the Delphi technique. Methods: A Delphi study was undertaken between June and September 2021, when two questionnaires were consecutively sent to a panel of experts to be answered anonymously. An invitation to participate was sent to 500 pediatricians distributed over the whole national territory and 80 (16%) of them accepted to participate on a voluntary basis. The questionnaires were structured into three specific topics: "therapeutic appropriateness and management of the febrile child," "management of the febrile child in the presence of other diseases," and "future perspectives in remote management." Each topic had six statements. Results: A first-round questionnaire was sent to 80 accepting pediatricians from different Italian regions. Of the 72 respondents (23% working in hospitals and 72% outside), 33% were from northern, 12% central, and 55% southern Italy or islands. A second-round questionnaire was sent to the same 80 pediatricians and 69 of them responded, without significant differences for workplaces or geographical distribution as compared with the first questionnaire. Overall, 75 participants answered at least one of the two questionnaires. All the statements on the topics of "therapeutic appropriateness and management of the febrile child" and "future perspectives in remote management" reached the predefined cut off for consensus (75% or more). Only one statement on "management of the febrile child in the presence of other diseases" did not achieve the consensus even after the second round. Conclusions: Italian pediatricians agree on several aspects of treatment of febrile children and their expert opinions could support everyday decision process complementary to recommendations by regulatory agencies and guidelines.
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.