HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: adc.2008.139949v1 93/11/918    most recent Submit a response Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in ADC Online Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by El-Radhi, A S. M PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by El-Radhi, A S. M Topic Collections Poisoning Epilepsy and seizures Infection (neurology) Child health Immunology (including allergy)

Why is the evidence not affecting the practice of fever management?

Correspondence to:
Dr A Sahib Mehdi El-Radhi, Petts Wood, Orpington, Kent BR6 0SB, UK; sahib.el-radhi@hotmail.co.uk

Accepted for publication 23 May 2008

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Fever is a very common complaint in children and is the single most common non-trauma-related reason for visits to the emergency department.¹ Parents are concerned about fever and its potential complications, but what knowledge do they actually have about fever and its management at home? The biological value of fever (ie, whether it is beneficial or harmful) is disputed and fever is vigorously treated in the hope of lessening its complications. The practice of alternating two types of antipyretics has become widespread at home and on paediatric wards, but is this practice supported by evidence and does it result in complications? There is still a significant contrast between scientific evidence on the one hand and current concept and practice on the other. Why is that the case in such a common complaint as fever?

Fever is often considered by parents and doctors as a major and harmful sign of illness, . . . [Full text of this article]

eLetters: