ArticleEmergency medicine Australasia : EMA2025
Paediatric Fever Management Practices and Antipyretic Use Among Doctors and Nurses in Australian Emergency Departments.
Article in Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA, 2025. 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.
- Defining fever-related discomfort in children: an international Delphi consensus.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Paediatric Fever Management Practices and Antipyretic Use Among Doctors and Nurses in Australian Emergency Departments.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo examine variation in practice and adherence to international clinical guidelines for the management of fever among Australian Emergency Department (ED) clinicians.
methodsCross-sectional survey across 22 Australian EDs. Clinical vignettes were used to determine compliance with international best practice guidelines (use of antipyretic monotherapy to alleviate fever-associated child distress) for paediatric fever treatment. Comparisons were made between specialist paediatric EDs and general (non-specialist paediatric) EDs, and between medical and nursing staff.
resultsOf 539 survey respondents (300 doctors, 239 nurses; overall response rate 65.9%), only 9.3% (50/539, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1%-12.0%) adhered to evidence-based practice guidelines. Specialist paediatric ED clinicians demonstrated less than half the adherence of those from general EDs (5.4% [11/204] vs. 12.4% [38/307], difference -7.0%, 95% CI -11.7% to -1.9%). In a febrile settled child with normal hydration, the proportion of respondents who opted for antipyretics more than doubled in the context of elevated vital signs (40.4% [218/539] vs. 83.1% [44/539], difference -42.7%, 95% CI -46.8% to -38.2%). Nearly half of respondents (239/539, 46.8%, 95% CI 42.4%-51.2%) endorsed giving combined antipyretic therapy. In a febrile settled child, most participants would give antipyretics for temperature reduction (453/539, 84.0%, 95% CI 80.7%-86.9%) and for decreased fluid intake (468/539, 87.5%, 95% CI 84.4%-90.0%). Over one-third (192/539, 36.0%, 95% CI 32.1%-40.2%) recommended using antipyretics for febrile convulsion prevention during the current illness.
conclusionsFewer than 10% of Australian ED clinicians self-report practice consistent with international consensus recommendations for paediatric fever management.
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.