Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Is there a place for “drive thru” management of neonatal fever? Not yet!
  1. P Rudd
  1. Correspondence to:
    P Rudd
    Children’s Center, Royal United Hospital, Bath BA1 3NG, UK; peter.rudd{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Perspective on the paper by Marom et al (see page F15)

The non-specific symptoms and signs of severe bacterial infection (SBI) in the neonate means that for reasons of safety many children with fever are hospitalised and treated with antibiotics for non-existent bacterial infections. Psychologists, microbiologists, parents and hospital managers have taught us that admission is something to be avoided, although for some families the perceived safety of a children’s ward can be very reassuring. Thus, a study that helps to discriminate the neonate with infection from one without infection is to be welcomed.

What have Marom et al1 shown? There was an extremely low rate of SBI (1/166; 0.6%) among infants fulfilling low-risk criteria, as follows: previously well, good appearance, no focal signs, a low erythrocyte sedimentation rate, a white cell count of 5000–15 000/mm3 and normal urinalysis. The relatively high risk for SBI in the other group (107/220; 48.6%) was accounted for by a large number of children with urinary tract infections (n = 54) and with otitis media (n = 36); otitis media is regarded as relatively unusual in the neonate. In this study all infants were treated, but it was suggested that further research be performed with …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests: None declared.

Linked Articles