Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37902340›Full record

SynthesisCritical care medicine2023

Society of Critical Care Medicine and the Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines for Evaluating New Fever in Adult Patients in the ICU.

Naomi P O'Grady, Earnest Alexander, Waleed Alhazzani, Fayez Alshamsi, Jennifer Cuellar-Rodriguez, Brian K Jefferson, Andre C Kalil, Stephen M Pastores, Robin Patel, David van Duin and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Critical care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Clinical implications of a singleJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Evaluation of non-invasive sensors for monitoring core temperature.Journal of clinical monitoring and computing · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Fever in Sepsis Revisited: Is a Little Heat What We Need?Open forum infectious diseases · 2025
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Naomi P O'GradyInternal Medicine Services, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD.
Earnest AlexanderClinical Pharmacy Services, Department of Pharmacy, Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL.
Waleed AlhazzaniDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Fayez AlshamsiDepartment of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
Jennifer Cuellar-RodriguezLaboratory of Clinical Immunology and Microbiology, National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD.
Brian K JeffersonDivision of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, Department of Internal Medicine-Critical Care Services, Atrium Health Cabarrus, Concord, NC.
Andre C KalilInfectious Diseases Division, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE.
Stephen M PastoresDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Robin PatelDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Rochester, MN.
David van DuinDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
David J WeberDivision of Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Stanley DeresinskiDivision of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USMcMaster University · CAMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USStanford University · USUnited Arab Emirates University · AEUniversity of Minnesota Rochester · USUniversity of Nebraska Medical Center · US

Funding

Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group (ARLG)UM1AI104681 · NIAID · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Vance G. Fowler, Henry F HENRY CHAMBERS · 2013 to 2026
$180.8M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI104681
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleFever is frequently an early indicator of infection and often requires rigorous diagnostic evaluation.

objectivesThis is an update of the 2008 Infectious Diseases Society of America and Society (IDSA) and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guideline for the evaluation of new-onset fever in adult ICU patients without severe immunocompromise, now using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. PANEL

designThe SCCM and IDSA convened a taskforce to update the 2008 version of the guideline for the evaluation of new fever in critically ill adult patients, which included expert clinicians as well as methodologists from the Guidelines in Intensive Care, Development and Evaluation Group. The guidelines committee consisted of 12 experts in critical care, infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, organ transplantation, public health, clinical research, and health policy and administration. All task force members followed all conflict-of-interest procedures as documented in the American College of Critical Care Medicine/SCCM Standard Operating Procedures Manual and the IDSA. There was no industry input or funding to produce this guideline.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review for each population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as best-practice statements.

resultsThe panel issued 12 recommendations and 9 best practice statements. The panel recommended using central temperature monitoring methods, including thermistors for pulmonary artery catheters, bladder catheters, or esophageal balloon thermistors when these devices are in place or accurate temperature measurements are critical for diagnosis and management. For patients without these devices in place, oral or rectal temperatures over other temperature measurement methods that are less reliable such as axillary or tympanic membrane temperatures, noninvasive temporal artery thermometers, or chemical dot thermometers were recommended. Imaging studies including ultrasonography were recommended in addition to microbiological evaluation using rapid diagnostic testing strategies. Biomarkers were recommended to assist in guiding the discontinuation of antimicrobial therapy. All recommendations issued were weak based on the quality of data.

conclusionsThe guidelines panel was able to formulate several recommendations for the evaluation of new fever in a critically ill adult patient, acknowledging that most recommendations were based on weak evidence. This highlights the need for the rapid advancement of research in all aspects of this issue-including better noninvasive methods to measure core body temperature, the use of diagnostic imaging, advances in microbiology including molecular testing, and the use of biomarkers.

Indexed as

Communicable DiseasesCritical IllnessAdultBiomarkersCritical CareFeverHumansIntensive Care UnitsBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID37902340
PMCPMC13667910
OpenAlexW4387579486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.