Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.


Emergent Management of Pediatric Patients with Fever

  • Author: John W Graneto, DO, FACOEP, FACEP; Chief Editor: Russell W Steele, MD  more...
Updated: Apr 23, 2015


Emergent management of pediatric patients with fever is a common challenge. Children with fever account for as many as 20% of pediatric emergency department (ED) visits,[1] and the underlying disorders in these cases range from mild conditions to the most serious of bacterial and viral illnesses.[2, 3]

Infants younger than 2 months have unique risks for serious bacterial infections; as such, their management is discussed separately from that of older children.

Clinical guidelines have been studied, reported, and scrutinized in major journals for the past 2 decades, yet definitive conclusions are sometimes still elusive and the application to each individual case in the ED is sometimes even more frustrating for the clinician.[4] Inconsistent treatment approaches exist even in the most experienced pediatric EDs.[5, 6]

Some of the fears and anxiety exhibited by parents are shared by ED staff as well. Myths and misperceptions about children with temperature elevations are reported. Fever phobia is well described as existing with both caregivers as well as medical providers.[7, 8, 9, 10]

Because pediatric fever is both a high-impact and a high-frequency chief complaint, the clinician should be knowledgeable about febrile conditions that occur in a variety of age groups of pediatric patients. ED guidelines for treating children with febrile illness are used in order to standardize the approach to care.

This article discusses the appropriate ED management of young febrile children, particularly those younger than 2 years. Neonates (< 28 days) and young infants (28-60 days) are discussed as subsets of this group of pediatric febrile patients.

For more information, see the Medscape Reference articles Fever in the Infant and Toddler and Fever Without a Focus.


Patient History


Determine the patient's immunization status; see the 2014 immunization schedule.[11] Simply asking whether the child is “up to date” with immunizations may not elicit enough information. Ask how many doses of pneumococcal conjugate (PCV-7) and Haemophilus influenzae type B (HIB) vaccines have been administered. It is also important to inquire about which immunizations have been administered recently.

Some children may not be fully immunized—because of compliance, finances, or perceived health risks,[12] —and thus may be at risk for the infections covered by these vaccines. On the other hand, recent vaccinations might have caused an elevation in the patient's temperature.

Temperature measurement at home

Some pediatric patients may have had a subjective determination of an elevated temperature by their caregivers before coming to the hospital but are afebrile when they present to the ED. Parents may report a temperature elevation in their child without having actually recorded the temperature with a thermometer.

Parental reporting of fever on the basis of subjective information (eg, touching the child's torso or extremities or feeling his or her forehead) is a reliable indicator of a fever having been present. Studies have shown that the parental assessment of fever in this situation is usually accurate.[13] On the other hand, one study found that the subjective history of fever in such infants may not correlate with subsequent fever, whereas those with an elevated rectal temperature measured at home had relatively high rates of serious bacterial infection.[14]

Home use of temporal artery thermometers have not been shown to be completely reliable indicators of febrile children.[15]

Fever phobia

Parents may be overly concerned about possible outcomes of prolonged high temperature, or they may believe that every fever requires antibiotic therapy.[16, 17] These usually unwarranted fears have been shown to vary by race and ethnicity, as well as by the age of the child and parental education level.[8, 18, 19]

Temperature elevation may not be the only sign of sepsis in neonates and infants. Other potential signs and symptoms of sepsis unique to infancy should also be assessed. History taking is an important part of clinical decision making.

The clinician should ask the patient's parents or caretakers about the following items when they bring in a febrile or ill-appearing child:

  • Immunization history, such as recent vaccination or a history of inadequate immunizations
  • History of exposure to sick contacts and treatments, such as antibiotics
  • Recent travel history
  • History of previous hospitalization, prolonged ICU stay, prematurity, or immunocompromised diseases
  • History of change in mental status, change in eating and/or behavioral patterns such as irritability, lethargy, or apnea
  • History of neglect or abuse
  • Documented fever at home, the duration of any fever, and the last treatment (if any) for the fever

Environmental factors, such as being in the heat for a long time during the summer and being overdressed during the winter, may indicate a risk for hyperthermia.

The neonate (birth to 28 days)

The history of the neonate is explored for possible symptoms of poor feeding, vomiting, poor social interaction, changes in the quality of crying, and possible apneic episodes. Any of these findings are reasons to consider serious bacterial infection and may warrant further investigation and laboratory evaluation.

The birth history is explored to ascertain risk factors for underlying pathology, such as prematurity, maternal infections (eg, group B Streptococcus, sexually transmitted diseases such as genital herpes simplex), and congenital or chronic disease states. Neonates at risk for congenital herpes are those born to mothers with a history of recent genital infection and high-risk sexual activity; delivery-related risk factors include rupture of membranes for longer than 6 hours and use of a scalp electrode.

Neonates who present with irritability, seizures, respiratory distress, jaundice, or a characteristic vesicular rash should be considered at risk for neonatal herpes. Note that 10-50% will not develop skin lesions during the course of their illness.[20]

The history is also explored for previous diagnostic studies and their results.

The older child

The following questions might be helpful:

  • What is the timing of the current illness?
  • When did the fever start?
  • How long has the fever been present? Are there any related symptoms?
  • What is the patient's medical history? The history may not be applicable in all cases, but it must be explored to reveal potential high risk or complicating factors.
  • Has the child's activity significantly changed during the illness?
  • Is the child tolerating fluids at home? Has the child been less interested in eating?
  • Have the stool patterns changed in consistency or frequency?
  • Has there been recent antibiotic use?
  • Has there been exposure to illness through babysitters, day care contacts, or other caregivers? Are others at home sick?
  • Have the sleep patterns changed? Has the patient been snoring more at night than usual?
  • Has there been any recent travel that might have exposed the child to illnesses?

It can also be helpful to ask what has been done at home to help control the fever. Was an antipyretic given at home? If so, what dose was given?

In some cases, the clinician finds that child received an inadequate does of antipyretic medication. Over-the-counter medications may not clearly list the correct weight-based dose for children younger than 2 years. Some product instructions simply state "call physician" or "seek medical care." Parents should be educated that the steadily changing weight of their child will result in a need to periodically update the correct dose of medication.[21, 22]

According to the 2003 clinical policy of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), response to antipyretic medication does not change the likelihood of a child having a serious bacterial infection and should not be used for clinical decision making.[23]


The Physical Exam

The physical examination of the febrile child is directed at locating a source of or reason for the temperature elevation, with specific attention to potential serious bacterial illnesses. Alternatively, an elevated temperature is not the only vital-sign irregularity that may indicate a potential infectious problem. Hypothermia may be a presenting vital-sign abnormality in septic neonates.

Thermometer use varies between oral, rectal, or axillary. Ear-probe thermometers may not be as accurate as rectal thermometers in the neonate; some study results suggest that operator error is the main reason. Axillary and rectal temperature measurements may also vary widely in neonates.[24] A rectal-probe thermometer is probably most likely to result in an accurate assessment of a neonate's temperature.[25, 26, 27]

Temperature elevation may not be the only sign of sepsis in neonates and infants. Other potential signs and symptoms of sepsis unique to infancy should also be assessed.

The infant's or child's interactions with the parent or caregiver are easily observed while the history is obtained. The following observations should be noted:

  • What is the quality of the cry? Is it abnormal, high pitched, or weak in effort?
  • Does the child appear fearful of the examiner? Beyond infancy, healthy young children should fear strangers; the child who lies on the examination table without much interaction or who is not disturbed by an examination may be more likely to have a more serious illness
  • What is the skin color? Are there areas of cyanosis or jaundice? Are there any rashes present?
  • What is the degree of hydration? Are tears present during crying? Is there moisture on the oral mucosa/lips or tongue? For the neonate, a gentle palpation of the anterior fontanelle may give a general indication to the fluid status; a sunken fontanelle indicates possible hypovolemia/dehydration
  • What is the response to social overtures? Does the baby smile at the examiner? Does the baby smile or appear interested in a small toy or other shiny object? Checking for a social smile is a helpful component of the examination because it remains one of the better predictors of well babies [28]

The capillary refill time is generally thought to be the quickest assessment of early hypoperfusion. Capillary refill time is faster to obtain than a blood-pressure measurement and is particularly helpful in a loud or busy ED. A delay in the capillary refill time (>2 seconds) indicates hypoperfusion of the skin. Shunting of blood from the capillary beds in the skin is an indication of increased systematic vascular resistance (SVR). An increase in SVR is generally thought to occur early in the course of pediatric hypovolemia. Hypovolemia can result from obvious conditions, such as blood loss and vomiting and diarrhea, or from more subtle reasons, such as tachypnea and sweating.

The presence of dyspnea, tachypnea, grunting, flaring, and retractions is noted. These findings suggest possible serious illness and require further exploration (eg, pulse oximetry, chest radiography).[29]

Hydration status is documented to include specific signs of dehydration such as dry mucous membranes, sunken fontanelle, absence of tears when crying, and/or a lack of urine output (by history).

Persistent irritability despite feeding or inability of parents to console the child is concerning. True irritability and lethargy are physical signs traditionally associated with an ill child. Lethargy is defined as a decrease in the level of consciousness, some examples of which are failure of the child to recognize parents or caregivers, absent eye contact with the examiner, or failure to interact with the environment at an age-appropriate level.

Toxicity is defined as a clinical syndrome with the following: lethargy with (1) poor perfusion as evidenced by delayed capillary refill or (2) cyanosis or other signs of respiratory distress. Cold hands and feet, limb pain, and pale or mottled skin are considered "red flag" manifestations of septicemia.[30]

The presence or absence of meningeal signs is documented in older children. Clinicians should bear in mind that in some infants and younger children (perhaps younger than 12-15 months) who develop meningitis, specific meningeal signs, such as the Kernig or Brudzinski sign, may not be present.

A hemorrhagic rash is classically described as resulting from overwhelming systemic bacterial infection due to meningococcemia but may be due to other (usually serious) infections. The presence of petechiae or purpura in febrile children indicates the need for prompt evaluation and therapy.

Clinical observation scales have been developed to aid in the determination of the degree of illness.[31] Clinical observation by house staff and seasoned clinicians has produced inconsistent results over the reliability and consistency of clinical observation scales. Regardless of the clinical scale used, one predictor of overall wellness of a child is the presence of a smile.[28]

A physical finding of an isolated bacterial illness, such as otitis media or pneumonia, should not preclude the clinician from possibly pursuing a more extensive workup to exclude sepsis in the neonate.


Minimizing Patient Risk

Discharging a child from the emergency department (ED) with an unrecognized serious bacterial infection is a potential medicolegal risk for the ED physician. The risk is minimized by performing and documenting an appropriate history, physical examination, and, when indicated, a workup, as well as ensuring effective follow-up care.[32]

Several factors indicate an increased risk of bacteremia and/or sepsis, including age less than 2 months, an immunocompromised state (eg, neutropenic or underlying malignancy), being unvaccinated or undervaccinated, hypothermia (core temperature < 36.8°C, or 98°F), and hyperthermia (core temperature >40.5°C, or 105°F).[33]

Some pediatric patients may be potentially at a higher risk for bacterial illness than their age-matched counterparts. Special consideration for these populations should include appropriate evaluation in the ED, documentation of consultation with specialists, and chart documentation related to special needs.

Patients with inserted medical devices (eg, foreign bodes) may be at increased risk for infection related to the device. A documented discussion with an appropriate consultant may be indicated. Examples of such devices include the following:

  • Recently inserted cardiac pacemaker
  • Ventriculoperitoneal shunts
  • Central lines or other long-term intravenous access

Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are considered functionally asplenic. Asplenic patients are at exceptional high risk of sepsis due to encapsulated organisms, such as Streptococcus pneumonia. Because of this, patients with SCD are often hospitalized for observation and empiric treatment. If these patients present with fever, they are considered at higher risk for occult bacteremia and treated accordingly. Blood cultures, CBCs, and differentials are assessed. Parenteral antibiotics against encapsulated organisms are given early.

Patients who are absolutely or relatively immunocompromised (eg, patients with underlying malignancy, patients undergoing chemotherapeutic regimens) must be evaluated for possible occult bacterial infection. Fever and neutropenia should be considered, and a consultation with the oncologist may be indicated.[34]

The approach to patients with HIV infection should be aggressive enough to determine presence of serious bacterial illness. History includes the parent’s or patient's knowledge of their level of CD4 cells and viral load. A sepsis workup is usually indicated in HIV-positive patients presenting with fever. Early consultation with the primary care provider or infectious disease specialist is indicated in the care of these patients.

Infants who were born prematurely may be at risk for infections, such as bronchiolitis or other complications (eg, necrotizing enterocolitis). Consultation with the primary care provider or high-risk neonatologist may be indicated.

Patients with cystic fibrosis are especially susceptible to pneumonia and should be liberally evaluated for such. Consultation with a pulmonologist may be indicated.

Ideally, the decision to admit or discharge these patients is established by a written protocol or guidelines previously established in conjunction with the department of pediatrics. A documented discussion with the specialist may be indicated.

Patients with febrile seizures

The evaluation of patients presenting with a simple febrile seizure focuses on determining the cause of the fever. In children aged 2-24 months with simple febrile seizures, the risk for occult bacteremia is about the same as that of patients with fever alone.

In children who remain ill appearing and/or who have signs of toxicity, the possibility of meningitis might be considered.[35] Young children with febrile seizures, especially those younger than 12 months may not always reliably demonstrate physical signs of meningitis.

The child with a febrile seizure should be monitored for some time in the ED, and findings on serial examinations should be documented to differentiate children who are ill with occult disease from children who may be safely discharged home.[36]

Lumbar puncture (LP) may be difficult to justify in the child who, after appropriate use of an antipyretic, exhibits normal activity. LP is reserved for the younger patient, the patient already receiving antibiotics, or the patient whose physical findings cause concern.


Workup for Neonates

Guidelines have been applied to neonatal emergency medicine. Traditionally, a febrile neonate (temperature >100.4°F [>38°C]) undergoes a full sepsis workup, which includes a CBC count, urinalysis, blood culture, urine culture, chest radiography, and diagnostic LP. The age group that is defined for this workup may vary. At minimum, the guideline is applied to neonates younger than 28 days, and in some institutions or regions of the country, it may be applied to infants as old as 60 days.

A full evaluation for sepsis in febrile neonates is warranted because their risk for serious bacterial infection (SBI) is relatively high. Even among those who otherwise meet low-risk criteria, the rates of SBI are about 5%.[33, 32]

Similarly, about 10% of febrile neonates who have documented respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection or clinical bronchiolitis have SBI[37] ; most of these are urinary tract infections (UTIs). This infection rate is about the same as for those without documented RSV infection or clinical bronchiolitis; therefore, a full evaluation for sepsis should be performed for these patients.

Cerebrospinal fluid analysis

For infants younger than 28 days, the median CSF values were as follows:

  • WBC count – 5/µL (range, 0-20)
  • Glucose - 46 mg/dL
  • Protein - 73 mg/dL

One study determined that adding polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for enterovirus to routine CSF testing reduced the duration of hospitalization and antibiotic use for young infants.[38]

Another study determined normal CSF profiles among a large cohort of febrile infants with atraumatic LPs, negative CSF bacterial cultures, and negative enteroviral PCR testing.[39]

Evaluation for herpes simplex

Evaluation of febrile neonates for herpes simplex infection should be considered when the following risk factors are present:

  • Age younger than 3 weeks
  • Vesicles
  • Seizure
  • Toxic or ill appearance
  • CSF pleocytosis or red blood cells
  • Maternal history of herpes

Laboratory studies to screen for herpes infection may include the following:

  • Collecting vesicle fluid for culture and direct fluorescent antibody testing
  • Swabbing nasopharynx, conjunctiva, and rectum for culture
  • Performing LP for CSF PCR testing and culture

Workup for Children 5-8 Weeks Old

Most febrile infants aged 5-8 weeks who present to the ED warrant a full evaluation for SBI because they are difficult to evaluate clinically and because ED physicians cannot ensure adequate follow-up.[40]

The threshold for performing an LP in these infants should be low; many of these infants will warrant CSF examination. In select cases, at the clinician's discretion, an LP may be omitted in well-appearing infants who have blood and urine studies obtained and when the following apply:

  • Reliable follow-up is possible in 12-24 hours
  • Clinicians are confident that parents or caretakers can comply with appropriate observation and follow-up
  • No antibiotics have been started

A recent study defined median CSF profiles among uninfected infants in this age range.[39]

  • WBC count - 3/mm 3 (range, 0-11)
  • Glucose - 48 mg/dL
  • Protein - 54 mg/dL

Urine studies are important in this age group, as UTIs are a common source of SBI.[41, 42, 43] Additional studies such as stool cultures are performed selectively. Chest radiographs do not need to be obtained routinely in those without signs of respiratory disease.[44, 45]


Workup for Children 2-24 Months Old

In children who have been immunized against pneumococcal disease, the routine use of CBC and blood culture are no longer recommended.[46, 47, 48] If a CBC is obtained, interpretation of the total WBC remains controversial. Distinguishing between a high total WBC count versus a very high WBC count may leave the physicians with even more questions about the relevance of this laboratory result.[46, 49, 50]

The rates of bacteremia and invasive pneumococcal disease have dramatically declined since the licensing of the 7-valent pneumococcal vaccine (PCV7) vaccine in 2000.[12, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56] This vaccine protects against the 7 pneumococcal serotypes that cause 85% of invasive pneumococcal disease in children, including nearly all of the serotypes that are highly penicillin resistant.

Prior to routine use of the pneumococcal vaccine, occult bacteremia occurred with an incidence of 3-5% in children younger than 24 months with fever. Studies in the 1980s-1990s showed the rate of occult bacteremia was as high as 5%. In the 21st century, studies show a decline in the rates to as low as 0.5-1%.[57] This change is most likely due to the increasing rates of pneumococcal vaccinations.[58]

Before widespread PCV7 use, approximately 60-70% of all cases of occult bacteremia were caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae. S pneumoniae is the most prevalent and certainly the most significant cause of morbidity and mortality related to occult bacteremia.

In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed a 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine (PCV13), which includes protection against additional strains of pneumococcus, including serotype 19A. This PCV13 vaccination will supplant the PCV7 vaccination, presumptively causing a further decline in invasive pneumococcal disease.[59, 60] The routine use of pneumococcal vaccine has essentially made rates of occult bacteremia a classic historical discussion.[56]

Before routine use of the HIB vaccine, HIB accounted for 20% of occult illness, but this cause also decreased in frequency after the vaccination became routine in the 1990s.[61, 62]

An increase in the total band count or erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) is not more predictive of occult pneumococcal bacteremia than an elevated WBC count alone. Before the routine use of the pneumococcal vaccine, a WBC count above 15,000/mm3 had been reported to be 70% sensitive for predicting occult bacteremia from pneumococcus.[63]

Children in this age group who present with a higher temperature (>102.9°F [>39.4°C]) may be at risk for occult bacteremia, especially if they are underimmunized or immunosuppressed. By definition, occult means that the patient exhibits no other signs or symptoms suggesting the etiology of the temperature elevation.

Other less common etiologic agents are Neisseria meningitides and (especially in patients with sickle cell disease) Salmonella species.[51] Herpes and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Streptococcus aureus (MRSA) are now emerging as more common pathogens in neonates.[64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71]

Children younger than 24 months presenting with the clinical syndrome of bronchiolitis are at a lower risk of bacteremia and UTIs. Therefore, routine urine and blood culturing in previously healthy children presenting with fever and bronchiolitis is usually not indicated; extreme fever or ill appearance may be indications to obtain a blood culture. Testing of the nasal secretions for a viral etiology such as respiratory syncytial viral (RSV) or influenza A/B may be helpful.[72]

Rates of UTI may be lower in patients with bronchiolitis than those without any fever source.[73]

Viral infections are the most common cause of fever in young children aged 2-24 months. Well-appearing children with unremarkable histories and physical examinations may be discharged home without laboratory testing or presumptive use of antibiotics. An LP should be considered for those who are irritable, lethargic, inconsolable, or toxic appearing.

During summer months, children with fever and no other signs may have an enterovirus infection. Some studies report the incidence as high as 50% in febrile children in the ED. Enteroviral infection is a clinical diagnosis for the emergency physician. No specific laboratory testing is indicated.

Diarrhea most commonly has a viral etiology in this age group. The presence of diarrhea with blood or mucus or recent use of antibiotics may be indications for ordering stool cultures to assess for a bacterial etiology.

The routine acquisition of CBC and/or blood cultures to screen for occult bacteremia in immunocompetent children is strongly discouraged for the following reasons:

  • The peripheral white blood cell count has a low positive predictive value for bacteremia
  • Bacteremia rates are less than 1% in the postpneumococcal vaccine era [51, 12, 56]
  • Bacteremia spontaneous resolution rates (without antibiotics) are greater than 90%; therefore, few children with pneumococcal bacteremia develop complications [74, 75]
  • High false-positive blood culture rates from contamination leads to unnecessary testing and/or hospitalizations
  • Indiscriminate testing is costly and invasive

Similarly, the presumptive use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is strongly discouraged because of low bacteremia and complication rates, high costs, adverse drug reactions, and increasing rates of antibiotic resistance due to indiscriminate antibiotic use, as well as because the outcomes for febrile young children not treated presumptively with parenteral antibiotics are uniformly good.

For clinically ill-appearing children, a sepsis workup to include a blood culture should be obtained. Use of serum markers for sepsis, including a lactate level and procalcitonin, have been described as being helpful in stratifying the sickest children.[76, 77, 78, 79] This is especially true in children ill enough to warrant an LP as described above, those exhibiting signs of shock, or those with a petechial rash.


Workup for Children Older Than 24 Months

The febrile child older than 24 months (who has been previously fully immunized) is primarily evaluated by obtaining a history and performing a physical examination.

Specific workup and/or treatment is based on the clinical findings and suspicion of disease.[80, 81, 82]


Urinalysis and Urine Culture

UTI is a common cause of SBI in infants and young children.[83, 41, 42, 43] Clinicians should have a lower threshold for ordering UA and urine cultures than for screening for bacteremia, especially for those with risk factors.

For boys, risk factors for UTI include age younger than 6 months and being uncircumcised.[84] For girls, risk factors for UTI include the following:

  • Age younger than 12 months
  • White race
  • Temperature above 39°C
  • Illness for 2 days or more
  • Absence of any other source for fever

In particular, clinicians should have a lower threshold for UTI screening for white girls; in 2 separate studies, UTI rates were as high as 17% in this group.[84, 85]

Urethral catheterization is the method of choice to obtain urine to avoid contamination with skin flora. Urine collected in a bag placed on the perineum is often contaminated and should not be evaluated for bacterial culture.[86, 87] Suprapubic aspiration of the bladder for urine should be discouraged. Urethral catheterization is less invasive and less painful and is associated with a higher yield of urine.

An enhanced UA, with a hemocytometer cell count and Gram stain of unspun urine, is more sensitive than a standard UA.[88] Since negative urine dipstick or UA results in febrile young children do not always exclude UTI, urine cultures should be performed regardless of UA results.[23] In bacteremic children with UTI, blood cultures and urine cultures are likely to have identical organisms with identical antimicrobial sensitivities.[89]


Stool Studies

Diarrhea in children is commonly caused by viral organisms and is usually not considered a major source of fever. However, diarrhea with blood or mucus is an indication for further testing for fecal leukocytes, which suggests invasive bacterial etiologies.

If fecal leukocytes (>5 per high-powered field) are present, a bacterial etiology is suggested and cultures are indicated. This finding may indicate infection with species of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, Yersinia, or toxic strains of Escherichia coli. The final diagnosis can be made only by obtaining stool cultures.

During winter months, children presenting with low-grade fever, vomiting, and diarrhea should be considered possibly infected with rotavirus. Children in day care centers are at increased risk for rotavirus infection. Rotavirus vaccine may change the incidence of this clinical etiology as well.


Chest Radiographs

Chest radiographs are most useful for patients with high fever accompanied by focal pulmonary examination findings. Chest radiographs should not be routinely performed for fever alone, in the absence of lower respiratory tract findings or hypoxemia.

A study from Spain found that 13% of young children with fever above 39.0°C and a peripheral white blood cell (WBC) count of greater than 20 × 109/L had occult pneumonia.[90] However, just 20% of the radiographs were interpreted by radiologists, and the authors estimate that just one third to one half of the children had received the pneumococcal vaccine.

Given the very low positive predictive value of the WBC count, its routine acquisition in the setting of high fever should be discouraged. On the other hand, if the WBC is obtained and is markedly elevated, consideration should be given to obtaining a chest radiograph, in the absence of an alternative source of fever.

In febrile neonates and young infants, a chest radiograph may only be a routine part of a sepsis workup in the presence of respiratory signs in neonates (eg, rales, grunting, flaring, retractions, hypoxia) or lower respiratory tract findings (eg, cough, tachypnea) in infants. An increased respiratory rate is the earliest indicator of respiratory distress and should be considered in the overall decision to obtain a chest radiograph.

In febrile children aged 3-24 months, pneumonia may be present even in the absence of definite auscultatory signs. An abnormal respiratory rate or pulse oximetry should alert the emergency physician to the need for a chest radiograph. Chest radiography is indicated if the child shows signs of respiratory distress, such as tachypnea; grunting, flaring, or retractions; or hypoxia, as determined with pulse oximetry. A history of prolonged fever or cough may also be predictors of occult respiratory tract infection.[91]

In children older than 2 years, chest radiography is not routinely ordered unless a specific indication is present, such as prolonged cough, tachypnea, or hypoxia.[92]


Lumbar Puncture

Diagnostic LP is suggested for ill-appearing febrile infants and children associated with any of the following:

  • Age younger than 8 weeks
  • Complex febrile seizure (< 12 mo)
  • Full anterior fontanelle
  • Persistent vomiting
  • Persistent irritability, lethargy, inconsolability
  • Petechial rash

In young children, the classic signs of meningismus, such as the Kernig or Brudzinski signs, may be absent, even in the presence of CNS infection. See Pediatric Bacterial Meningitis.


Prehospital Care

Prehospital care provided by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel may vary from region to region based on regional differences in education, training, and transport times. Children with fever alone may require no specific intervention in the EMS setting, except for those other conditions that exist in the presence of fever.

Assessment of and attention to airway, breathing, and circulation is recommended first for all ill children. Securing intravenous (IV) access is part of the prehospital care, especially in toxic-appearing children. Children who have had prolonged or very high fever may become dehydrated, and assessment of the hydration status is indicated. Some children may be prone to febrile seizures. Seizure precautions should be followed in those with a history of febrile seizures.


Emergency Department Care

Airway, breathing, circulation

Clinicians first need to address airway, breathing, and circulation if this has not already been done. Manage the airway (supplemental oxygen or intubation as needed) and secure intravenous access if it was not established during prehospital care. Monitor the patient's heart rate, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry readings. Administer intravenous fluids, such as normal sodium chloride solution with boluses (weight based), as needed for hypotension. Pressors should be given as needed for hypotension that does not respond to fluid.

Vital signs

Vital signs recorded in triage should routinely include a temperature in young children. This should be recorded for all neonates and infants presenting with fever or other potentially infectious complaints (eg, not eating well, not breathing well, color changes, behavior changes). A rectal temperature is the most accurate for infants.[93]

Nursing triage includes an accurate assessment of the patient's weight to ascertain the correct dose of an antipyretic or other medications. An antipyretic should be given as early as possible during the ED visit.

Fever reduction

Reduction of fever is used to help comfort the child as well as provide for the optimal examination conditions and should be addressed in triage protocols. Acetaminophen and ibuprofen have both been used for fever control.[22] These drugs are sometimes alternated to achieve an overlapping period of fever control.[94, 95, 96] Some studies suggest that acetaminophen may reduce fever more quickly, while ibuprofen may have a longer-lasting effect on fever reduction.[21, 97]

In a study of children aged 6 months to 6 years whose fever could be managed at home (37.5-41°C) Hay et al, found that the use of acetaminophen and ibuprofen improved time without fever during the first 4 hours and was superior to acetaminophen alone, but not ibuprofen alone.[95]

The combination also decreased fever 23 minutes faster than acetaminophen alone, but no faster than ibuprofen alone. Time without fever during the first 24 hours was improved with the combination compared with either acetaminophen or ibuprofen. Dosage was calculated as acetaminophen 15 mg/kg/dose and ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose.[95]

The ED staff should be educated that a positive response to antipyretics (evidenced by a drop in the measured temperature) does not predict the absence of a potentially serious bacterial disease.[97]

Criteria for discharge from the ED do not necessarily include reduction of the child's fever to a certain level before discharge. No evidence indicates that fever reduction is necessary for the child to be discharged from the ED.

The infant with only a history of subjectively estimated fever whose rectal temperature is normal on repeated measurements and who has an entirely normal clinical evaluation may be assessed as not requiring laboratory studies. All such infants discharged home still warrant close follow-up and continued short-term monitoring of rectal temperature.[1]

Presumptive antibiotic treatment

Neonates with fever who undergo a routine workup to rule out sepsis should then receive 2 antibiotics as treatment for their potential septicemia: an aminopenicillin (eg, ampicillin) and a cephalosporin (eg, cefotaxime).[98] Local surveillance for ampicillin resistance is critical.[99, 100] Neonates may also receive antiviral treatment with acyclovir if they are at risk for neonatal herpes infection.

Administer antibiotics as indicated:

  • Age 0-28 days: Presumptive therapy with ampicillin and either gentamicin or a third-generation cephalosporin is indicated, while awaiting culture results
  • Age 29-56 days: Children ill enough to warrant hospitalization may be treated in the same way as younger neonates; most who meet low-risk criteria and are well enough to be discharged home do not require presumptive antibiotics; some clinicians may choose to administer ceftriaxone prior to ED discharge
  • Age 2-24 months: No presumptive antibiotic therapy is indicated for well-appearing children who do not have a defined bacterial source and who will be managed as outpatients

Corticosteroid therapy is not routinely indicated in the treatment of young infants with bacterial meningitis.

Controversy continues over whether early bacterial meningitis or other severe systemic bacterial illness in these patients may not be apparent. Therefore, all such patients discharged from the ED require meticulous examination and thorough documentation.

Any discharge protocol in which patients may be observed on an outpatient basis should be developed collaboratively by the department of emergency medicine and the department of pediatrics.

A study sought to reduce time to antibiotic for children presenting to the emergency department with fever and neutropenia. The authors reported that implementing a standard approach to patients at risk for neutropenia decreased time to antibiotic which was associated with improved patient outcomes. Some of the challenges in providing timely antibiotics to children included venous access (time to effect of topical anesthetics, and difficulty obtaining access), physicians waiting on laboratory results, and antibiotic availability.[101]

Decision to admit

The decision to admit older neonates and young infants for presumptive sepsis should be based on several factors, including their ability to be reevaluated by a primary care provider the next day, toxic appearance, need for monitoring, need for hydration or other supportive measures, or poor social situation.

Admission is warranted for febrile infants 28-56 days old; however, these patients may be discharged home if they meet all of the following low-risk criteria[102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108] :

  • Well-appearing infant
  • No skeletal, soft tissue, skin, or ear infections
  • Full-term birth
  • No hyperbilirubinemia
  • No chronic or underlying illness
  • No previous hospitalizations
  • Not hospitalized longer than the mother after delivery
  • Did not receive antibiotics within the past 48 hours before presentation
  • No dehydration, lethargy, irritability, or wheezing
  • No focal source of infection on physical examination (except otitis media)
  • Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) white blood cell (WBC) count < 8 per high-power field (hpf)
  • WBC 500-15,000/mm 3 and band:poly ratio < 0.2
  • Urinalysis showing < 10 WBC/hpf
  • Chest radiograph without infiltrate (if obtained)
  • If diarrhea is present, fecal leukocytes < 5/hpf and urine WBCs < 10/hpf

Follow-up Care

Follow-up necessitates reliable parents with a telephone at home, with transportation readily available to them, and with follow-up care arranged with the primary physician the next day. If next-day follow-up with the primary physician cannot be arranged, the patient should return to the ED. Diagnosis-specific information sheets can enhance parental understanding of ED discharge instructions.[109]

Older children with a low-grade fever, no risk factors, no localized signs of infection, a good appearance, and no irritability may require only symptomatic treatment and close follow-up care. These patients do not routinely need laboratory evaluation, radiography, or empiric antibiotics.

For patients discharged from the ED, close follow-up with the primary care physicians should be arranged, and an ED protocol for notification of positive cultures is needed. Primary care physicians or ED physicians should notify caretakers if an outpatient has a positive blood culture. Such children, if they remain febrile, may require collection of CSF, a repeat blood culture, and hospitalization.

Primary care physicians or ED physicians should notify caretakers if a child has a positive urine culture. Older children with pyelonephritis may continue outpatient treatment if they appear well and can tolerate oral antibiotics. Clinicians should have a low threshold for hospitalizing those who are younger than 6 months with pyelonephritis.

The child should return either to the ED or to the primary care physician's office if his or her clinical presentation worsens after discharge.


Inpatient Care

All febrile neonates aged 0-28 days old should be hospitalized for presumed sepsis and treated with antibiotics until cultures of CSF, blood, and urine are all negative for growth after 48 hours.[110, 103, 111] Two parenteral antibiotics are administered during these inpatient admissions: an aminopenicillin, such as ampicillin, and either a cephalosporin, such as cefotaxime, or an aminoglycoside such as gentamicin.

If admitted, febrile patients outside of the neonatal period are prophylactically treated with an antibiotic (eg, a third-generation cephalosporin, such as ceftriaxone), until cultures are shown to be negative.[112]

Iatrogenic risks are involved with routine hospitalizations of all febrile neonates and young infants.[102] Protocols developed in advance, in cooperation with the ED staff as well as the pediatric staff, streamline the approach at each institution.

If the initial facility is not designed for pediatric inpatient care, transfer to a pediatric facility as needed after his or her condition is stabilized in the ED and after initial workup and treatments are completed.


Policy for Positive Culture Results

To ensure the quality of care, an ED policy should be established for positive culture results requiring a call back to the care provider or to the patient.

For a positive cerebrospinal fluid culture, a patient who was sent home should return to the hospital for intravenous antibiotics until identification of the organism is confirmed. Many EDs routinely admit all patients receiving lumbar puncture in the ED.

For a positive blood culture, the patient should be reevaluated by a physician. An afebrile patient who is doing well may be treated on an outpatient basis after infection with penicillinase-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae is considered. A repeat blood culture is indicated in most cases.

For a positive urine culture, the patient may be treated on an outpatient basis, with follow-up care and repeated cultures to prove effective treatment.[113]

Contributor Information and Disclosures

John W Graneto, DO, FACOEP, FACEP Professor of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics, Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine at Midwestern University

John W Graneto, DO, FACOEP, FACEP is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Osteopathic Association, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians, American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Russell W Steele, MD Clinical Professor, Tulane University School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Russell W Steele, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Immunologists, American Pediatric Society, American Society for Microbiology, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Louisiana State Medical Society, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, Society for Pediatric Research, Southern Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.


Kirsten A Bechtel, MD Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine; Attending Physician, Department of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital

Kirsten A Bechtel, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mary Beth Crawford, MD Clinical Assistant Professor, Departments of Surgery and Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Ohio, St Vincent Mercy Medical Center

Mary Beth Crawford, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Stuart A Friedman, DO Director of Emergency Medicine Residency, Associate Director, Department of Emergency Medicine, Frankford Hospitals

Stuart A Friedman, DO is a member of the following medical societies: American Osteopathic Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Michael H Goodyear, DO, FACEP Consulting Staff, Associate Program Director, Department of Emergency Medicine, Frankford Hospital

Michael H Goodyear, DO, FACEP is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, and Wilderness Medical Society

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

William G Gossman, MD Associate Clinical Professor of Emergency Medicine, Creighton University School of Medicine; Consulting Staff, Department of Emergency Medicine, Creighton University Medical Center

William G Gossman, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Fred Henretig, MD Director, Section of Clinical Toxicology, Professor, Medical Director, Delaware Valley Regional Poison Control Center, Departments of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Children's Hospital

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Richard J Scarfone, MD Associate Professor, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine; Attending Physician, Division of Emergency Medicine and Medical Director of Emergency Preparedness, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Richard J Scarfone, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha and American Academy of Pediatrics

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Mary L Windle, PharmD Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Wayne Wolfram, MD, MPH Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mercy St Vincent Medical Center

Wayne Wolfram, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American Academy of Pediatrics, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Stella C Wong, DO Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine

Stella C Wong, DO is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Medical Toxicology, American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

  1. Alpern ER, Henretig FM. Fever. Fleisher GR, Ludwg S, Henretig FM, eds. Textbook of Pediatric Emergency Medicine. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2006. 295-306.

  2. Selent MU, Molinari NM, Baxter A, Nguyen AV, Siegelson H, Brown CM, et al. Mass screening for fever in children: a comparison of 3 infrared thermal detection systems. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013 Mar. 29(3):305-13. [Medline].

  3. Muth M, Statler J, Gentile DL, Hagle ME. Frequency of Fever in Pediatric Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department with Non-illness-related Conditions. J Emerg Nurs. 2013 Feb 1. [Medline].

  4. Schweich PJ, Smith KM, Dowd MD, et al. Pediatric emergency medicine practice patterns: a comparison of pediatric and general emergency physicians. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1998 Apr. 14(2):89-94. [Medline].

  5. Seow VK, Lin AC, Lin IY, Chen CC, Chen KC, Wang TL, et al. Comparing different patterns for managing febrile children in the ED between emergency and pediatric physicians: impact on patient outcome. Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Nov. 25(9):1004-8. [Medline].

  6. Goldman RD, Scolnik D, Chauvin-Kimoff L, Farion KJ, Ali S, Lynch T, et al. Practice variations in the treatment of febrile infants among pediatric emergency physicians. Pediatrics. 2009 Aug. 124(2):439-45. [Medline].

  7. Walsh A, Edwards H. Management of childhood fever by parents: literature review. J Adv Nurs. 2006 Apr. 54(2):217-27. [Medline].

  8. Rupe A, Ahlers-Schmidt CR, Wittler R. A comparison of perceptions of fever and fever phobia by ethnicity. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2010 Mar. 49(2):172-6. [Medline].

  9. Poirier MP, Davis PH, Gonzalez-del Rey JA, Monroe KW. Pediatric emergency department nurses' perspectives on fever in children. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000 Feb. 16(1):9-12. [Medline].

  10. Greensmith L. Nurses' knowledge of and attitudes towards fever and fever management in one Irish children's hospital. J Child Health Care. 2013 Mar 1. [Medline].

  11. American Academy of Pediatrics. Recommended Immunization Schedule for Persons Age 0-6 Years---United States 2014. Available at Accessed: January, 2014.

  12. Stoll ML, Rubin LG. Incidence of occult bacteremia among highly febrile young children in the era of the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine: a study from a Children's Hospital Emergency Department and Urgent Care Center. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004 Jul. 158(7):671-5. [Medline].

  13. Graneto JW, Soglin DF. Maternal screening of childhood fever by palpation. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1996 Jun. 12(3):183-4. [Medline].

  14. Bonadio WA, Hegenbarth M, Zachariason M. Correlating reported fever in young infants with subsequent temperature patterns and rate of serious bacterial infections. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1990 Mar. 9(3):158-60. [Medline].

  15. Hoffman RJ, Etwaru K, Dreisinger N, Khokhar A, Husk G. Comparison of temporal artery thermometry and rectal thermometry in febrile pediatric emergency department patients. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013 Mar. 29(3):301-4. [Medline].

  16. Crocetti M, Moghbeli N, Serwint J. Fever phobia revisited: have parental misconceptions about fever changed in 20 years?. Pediatrics. 2001 Jun. 107(6):1241-6. [Medline].

  17. Purssell E. Parental fever phobia and its evolutionary correlates. J Clin Nurs. 2009 Jan. 18(2):210-8. [Medline].

  18. Crocetti M, Sabath B, Cranmer L, Gubser S, Dooley D. Knowledge and management of fever among Latino parents. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2009 Mar. 48(2):183-9. [Medline].

  19. Tessler H, Gorodischer R, Press J, Bilenko N. Unrealistic concerns about fever in children: the influence of cultural-ethnic and sociodemographic factors. Isr Med Assoc J. 2008 May. 10(5):346-9. [Medline].

  20. Colletti JE, Homme JL, Woodridge DP. Unsuspected neonatal killers in emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2004 Nov. 22(4):929-60. [Medline].

  21. Noyola DE, Fernandez M, Kaplan SL. Reevaluation of antipyretics in children with enteric fever. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1998 Aug. 17(8):691-5. [Medline].

  22. Carson SM. Alternating acetaminophen and ibuprofen in the febrile child: examination of the evidence regarding efficacy and safety. Pediatr Nurs. 2003 Sep-Oct. 29(5):379-82. [Medline].

  23. Clinical policy for children younger than three years presenting to the emergency department with fever. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Oct. 42(4):530-45. [Medline].

  24. Hissink Muller PC, van Berkel LH, de Beaufort AJ. Axillary and rectal temperature measurements poorly agree in newborn infants. Neonatology. 2008. 94(1):31-4. [Medline].

  25. Rhoads FA, Grandner J. Assessment of an aural infrared sensor for body temperature measurement in children. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1990 Feb. 29(2):112-5. [Medline].

  26. Fortuna EL, Carney MM, Macy M, Stanley RM, Younger JG, Bradin SA. Accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometry versus rectal thermometry in young children evaluated in the Emergency Department for Fever. J Emerg Nurs. 2010 Mar. 36(2):101-4. [Medline].

  27. Jean-Mary MB, Dicanzio J, Shaw J, Bernstein HH. Limited accuracy and reliability of infrared axillary and aural thermometers in a pediatric outpatient population. J Pediatr. 2002 Nov. 141(5):671-6. [Medline].

  28. McCarthy PL, Lembo RM, Fink HD, et al. Observation, history, and physical examination in diagnosis of serious illnesses in febrile children less than or equal to 24 months. J Pediatr. 1987 Jan. 110(1):26-30. [Medline].

  29. Richardson M, Lakhanpaul M. Assessment and initial management of feverish illness in children younger than 5 years: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2007 Jun 2. 334(7604):1163-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  30. Knight C, Glennie L. Early recognition of meningitis and septicaemia. J Fam Health Care. 2010. 20(1):6-8. [Medline].

  31. Baker MD, Avner JR, Bell LM. Failure of infant observation scales in detecting serious illness in febrile, 4- to 8-week-old infants. Pediatrics. 1990 Jun. 85(6):1040-3. [Medline].

  32. Nijman RG, Vergouwe Y, Thompson M, van Veen M, van Meurs AH, van der Lei J, et al. Clinical prediction model to aid emergency doctors managing febrile children at risk of serious bacterial infections: diagnostic study. BMJ. 2013 Apr 2. 346:f1706. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  33. Perry AM, Caviness AC, Allen JY. Characteristics and diagnoses of neonates who revisit a pediatric emergency center. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013 Jan. 29(1):58-62. [Medline].

  34. Ammann RA, Hirt A, Lüthy AR, Aebi C. Predicting bacteremia in children with fever and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2004 Jan. 23(1):61-7. [Medline].

  35. Shah SS, Alpern ER, Zwerling L, Reid JR, McGowan KL, Bell LM. Low risk of bacteremia in children with febrile seizures. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 May. 156(5):469-72. [Medline].

  36. Boyle DA, Sturm JJ. Clinical factors associated with invasive testing and imaging in patients with complex febrile seizures. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013 Apr. 29(4):430-4. [Medline].

  37. Levine DA, Platt SL, Dayan PS, et al. Risk of serious bacterial infection in young febrile infants with respiratory syncytial virus infections. Pediatrics. 2004 Jun. 113(6):1728-34. [Medline].

  38. King RL, Lorch SA, Cohen DM, Hodinka RL, Cohn KA, Shah SS. Routine cerebrospinal fluid enterovirus polymerase chain reaction testing reduces hospitalization and antibiotic use for infants 90 days of age or younger. Pediatrics. 2007 Sep. 120(3):489-96. [Medline].

  39. Byington CL, Kendrick J, Sheng X. Normative cerebrospinal fluid profiles in febrile infants. J Pediatr. 2011 Jan. 158(1):130-4. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  40. Garra G, Cunningham SJ, Crain EF. Reappraisal of criteria used to predict serious bacterial illness in febrile infants less than 8 weeks of age. Acad Emerg Med. 2005 Oct. 12(10):921-5. [Medline].

  41. Newman TB, Bernzweig JA, Takayama JI, Finch SA, Wasserman RC, Pantell RH. Urine testing and urinary tract infections in febrile infants seen in office settings: the Pediatric Research in Office Settings' Febrile Infant Study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Jan. 156(1):44-54. [Medline].

  42. Pantell RH, Newman TB, Bernzweig J, Bergman DA, Takayama JI, Segal M, et al. Management and outcomes of care of fever in early infancy. JAMA. 2004 Mar 10. 291(10):1203-12. [Medline].

  43. Zorc JJ, Levine DA, Platt SL, Dayan PS, Macias CG, Krief W, et al. Clinical and demographic factors associated with urinary tract infection in young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2005 Sep. 116(3):644-8. [Medline].

  44. Crain EF, Bulas D, Bijur PE, Goldman HS. Is a chest radiograph necessary in the evaluation of every febrile infant less than 8 weeks of age?. Pediatrics. 1991 Oct. 88(4):821-4. [Medline].

  45. Bramson RT, Meyer TL, Silbiger ML, Blickman JG, Halpern E. The futility of the chest radiograph in the febrile infant without respiratory symptoms. Pediatrics. 1993 Oct. 92(4):524-6. [Medline].

  46. Rudinsky SL, Carstairs KL, Reardon JM, Simon LV, Riffenburgh RH, Tanen DA. Serious bacterial infections in febrile infants in the post-pneumococcal conjugate vaccine era. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Jul. 16(7):585-90. [Medline].

  47. Mintegi S, Benito J, Sanchez J, Azkunaga B, Iturralde I, Garcia S. Predictors of occult bacteremia in young febrile children in the era of heptavalent pneumococcal conjugated vaccine. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009 Aug. 16(4):199-205. [Medline].

  48. Wilkinson M, Bulloch B, Smith M. Prevalence of occult bacteremia in children aged 3 to 36 months presenting to the emergency department with fever in the postpneumococcal conjugate vaccine era. Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Mar. 16(3):220-5. [Medline].

  49. Brauner M, Goldman M, Kozer E. Extreme leucocytosis and the risk of serious bacterial infections in febrile children. Arch Dis Child. 2010 Mar. 95(3):209-12. [Medline].

  50. Huppler AR, Eickhoff JC, Wald ER. Performance of low-risk criteria in the evaluation of young infants with fever: review of the literature. Pediatrics. 2010 Feb. 125(2):228-33. [Medline].

  51. Herz AM, Greenhow TL, Alcantara J, Hansen J, Baxter RP, Black SB, et al. Changing epidemiology of outpatient bacteremia in 3- to 36-month-old children after the introduction of the heptavalent-conjugated pneumococcal vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2006 Apr. 25(4):293-300. [Medline].

  52. Whitney CG, Farley MM, Hadler J, Harrison LH, Bennett NM, Lynfield R, et al. Decline in invasive pneumococcal disease after the introduction of protein-polysaccharide conjugate vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2003 May 1. 348(18):1737-46. [Medline].

  53. Kaplan SL, Mason EO Jr, Wald ER, Schutze GE, Bradley JS, Tan TQ, et al. Decrease of invasive pneumococcal infections in children among 8 children's hospitals in the United States after the introduction of the 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatrics. 2004 Mar. 113(3 Pt 1):443-9. [Medline].

  54. Hsu K, Pelton S, Karumuri S, Heisey-Grove D, Klein J. Population-based surveillance for childhood invasive pneumococcal disease in the era of conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005 Jan. 24(1):17-23. [Medline].

  55. Black SB, Shinefield HR, Hansen J, Elvin L, Laufer D, Malinoski F. Postlicensure evaluation of the effectiveness of seven valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2001 Dec. 20(12):1105-7. [Medline].

  56. Carstairs KL, Tanen DA, Johnson AS, Kailes SB, Riffenburgh RH. Pneumococcal bacteremia in febrile infants presenting to the emergency department before and after the introduction of the heptavalent pneumococcal vaccine. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Jun. 49(6):772-7. [Medline].

  57. Black S, France EK, Isaacman D, Bracken L, Lewis E, Hansen J, et al. Surveillance for invasive pneumococcal disease during 2000-2005 in a population of children who received 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2007 Sep. 26(9):771-7. [Medline].

  58. Teele DW, Pelton SI, Grant MJ, et al. Bacteremia in febrile children under 2 years of age: results of cultures of blood of 600 consecutive febrile children seen in a "walk- in" clinic. J Pediatr. 1975 Aug. 87(2):227-30. [Medline].

  59. Hsu KK, Shea KM, Stevenson AE, Pelton SI. Changing serotypes causing childhood invasive pneumococcal disease: Massachusetts, 2001-2007. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2010 Apr. 29(4):289-93. [Medline].

  60. Singleton RJ, Hennessy TW, Bulkow LR, Hammitt LL, Zulz T, Hurlburt DA, et al. Invasive pneumococcal disease caused by nonvaccine serotypes among alaska native children with high levels of 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine coverage. JAMA. 2007 Apr 25. 297(16):1784-92. [Medline].

  61. World Health Organization. Haemophilus influenzae type B (HiB). Available at Accessed: May 14, 2008.

  62. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Decline in Haemophilus influenzae Type b meningitis--Seattle-King County, Washington, 1984-1989. MMWR Weekly. Available at Accessed: May 14, 2008.

  63. Bonsu BK, Chb M, Harper MB. Identifying febrile young infants with bacteremia: is the peripheral white blood cell count an accurate screen?. Ann Emerg Med. 2003 Aug. 42(2):216-25. [Medline].

  64. Brown ZA, Wald A, Morrow RA, Selke S, Zeh J, Corey L. Effect of serologic status and cesarean delivery on transmission rates of herpes simplex virus from mother to infant. JAMA. 2003 Jan 8. 289(2):203-9. [Medline].

  65. Yee-Guardino S, Kumar D, Abughali N, Tuohy M, Hall GS, Kumar ML. Recognition and treatment of neonatal community-associated MRSA pneumonia and bacteremia. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2008 Feb. 43(2):203-5. [Medline].

  66. Hakim H, Mylotte JM, Faden H. Morbidity and mortality of Staphylococcal bacteremia in children. Am J Infect Control. 2007 Mar. 35(2):102-5. [Medline].

  67. Chuang YY, Huang YC, Lee CY, Lin TY, Lien R, Chou YH. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia in neonatal intensive care units: an analysis of 90 episodes. Acta Paediatr. 2004 Jun. 93(6):786-90. [Medline].

  68. Khairulddin N, Bishop L, Lamagni TL, Sharland M, Duckworth G. Emergence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia among children in England and Wales, 1990-2001. Arch Dis Child. 2004 Apr. 89(4):378-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  69. Healy CM, Hulten KG, Palazzi DL, Campbell JR, Baker CJ. Emergence of new strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in a neonatal intensive care unit. Clin Infect Dis. 2004 Nov 15. 39(10):1460-6. [Medline].

  70. Isaacs D, Fraser S, Hogg G, Li HY. Staphylococus aureus infections in Australasian neonatal nurseries. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2004. 89:F331-5.

  71. Healy CM, Palazzi DL, Edwards MS, Campbell JR, Baker CJ. Features of invasive staphylococcal disease in neonates. Pediatrics. 2004 Oct. 114(4):953-61. [Medline].

  72. Krief WI, Levine DA, Platt SL, Macias CG, Dayan PS, Zorc JJ, et al. Influenza virus infection and the risk of serious bacterial infections in young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2009 Jul. 124(1):30-9. [Medline].

  73. Kuppermann N, Bank DE, Walton EA, Senac MO Jr, McCaslin I. Risks for bacteremia and urinary tract infections in young febrile children with bronchiolitis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997 Dec. 151(12):1207-14. [Medline].

  74. Alpern ER, Alessandrini EA, Bell LM, Shaw KN, McGowan KL. Occult bacteremia from a pediatric emergency department: current prevalence, time to detection, and outcome. Pediatrics. 2000 Sep. 106(3):505-11. [Medline].

  75. Bandyopadhyay S, et al. Risk of serious bacterial infection in children with fever without a source in the post-Haemophilus influenza era when antibiotics are reserved for culture-proven bacteremia. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156:512-519:

  76. Gomez B, Bressan S, Mintegi S, Da Dalt L, Blazquez D, Olaciregui I, et al. Diagnostic value of procalcitonin in well-appearing young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2012 Nov. 130(5):815-22. [Medline].

  77. Kasem AJ, Bulloch B, Henry M, Shah K, Dalton H. Procalcitonin as a marker of bacteremia in children with fever and a central venous catheter presenting to the emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012 Oct. 28(10):1017-21. [Medline].

  78. Scott HF, Donoghue AJ, Gaieski DF, Marchese RF, Mistry RD. The utility of early lactate testing in undifferentiated pediatric systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Acad Emerg Med. 2012 Nov. 19(11):1276-80. [Medline].

  79. Myers AL, Hall M, Williams DJ, Auger K, Tieder JS, Statile A, et al. Prevalence of Bacteremia in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2013 Mar 20. [Medline].

  80. Baraff LJ, Bass JW, Fleisher GR, Klein JO, McCracken GH Jr, Powell KR, et al. Practice guideline for the management of infants and children 0 to 36 months of age with fever without source. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Ann Emerg Med. 1993 Jul. 22(7):1198-210. [Medline].

  81. Downs SM, McNutt RA, Margolis PA. Management of infants at risk for occult bacteremia: a decision analysis. J Pediatr. 1991 Jan. 118(1):11-20. [Medline].

  82. Trautner BW, Caviness AC, Gerlacher GR, Demmler G, Macias CG. Prospective evaluation of the risk of serious bacterial infection in children who present to the emergency department with hyperpyrexia (temperature of 106 degrees F or higher). Pediatrics. 2006 Jul. 118(1):34-40. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  83. Waddle E, Jhaveri R. Outcomes of febrile children without localising signs after pneumococcal conjugate vaccine. Arch Dis Child. 2009 Feb. 94(2):144-7. [Medline].

  84. Shaw KN, Gorelick M, McGowan KL, Yakscoe NM, Schwartz JS. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in febrile young children in the emergency department. Pediatrics. 1998 Aug. 102(2):e16. [Medline].

  85. Hoberman A, Chao HP, Keller DM, Hickey R, Davis HW, Ellis D. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in febrile infants. J Pediatr. 1993 Jul. 123(1):17-23. [Medline].

  86. Downs SM. Technical report: urinary tract infections in febrile infants and young children. The Urinary Tract Subcommittee of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Quality Improvement. Pediatrics. 1999 Apr. 103(4):e54. [Medline].

  87. Gorelick MH, Hoberman A, Kearney D, Wald E, Shaw KN. Validation of a decision rule identifying febrile young girls at high risk for urinary tract infection. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2003 Jun. 19(3):162-4. [Medline].

  88. Herr SM, Wald ER, Pitetti RD, Choi SS. Enhanced urinalysis improves identification of febrile infants ages 60 days and younger at low risk for serious bacterial illness. Pediatrics. 2001 Oct. 108(4):866-71. [Medline].

  89. Pitetti RD, Choi S. Utility of blood cultures in febrile children with UTI. Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Jul. 20(4):271-4. [Medline].

  90. Mintegi S, Benito J, Pijoan JI, Marañon R, Peñalba A, Gonzalez A, et al. Occult pneumonia in infants with high fever without source: a prospective multicenter study. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2010 Jul. 26(7):470-4. [Medline].

  91. Murphy CG, van de Pol AC, Harper MB, Bachur RG. Clinical predictors of occult pneumonia in the febrile child. Acad Emerg Med. 2007 Mar. 14(3):243-9. [Medline].

  92. Rutman MS, Bachur R, Harper MB. Radiographic pneumonia in young, highly febrile children with leukocytosis before and after universal conjugate pneumococcal vaccination. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009 Jan. 25(1):1-7. [Medline].

  93. Spruijt B, Vergouwe Y, Nijman RG, Thompson M, Oostenbrink R. Vital signs should be maintained as continuous variables when predicting bacterial infections in febrile children. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Apr. 66(4):453-7. [Medline].

  94. Sarrell EM, Wielunsky E, Cohen HA. Antipyretic treatment in young children with fever: acetaminophen, ibuprofen, or both alternating in a randomized, double-blind study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006 Feb. 160(2):197-202. [Medline].

  95. Hay AD, Redmond NM, Costelloe C, Montgomery AA, Fletcher M, Hollinghurst S, et al. Paracetamol and ibuprofen for the treatment of fever in children: the PITCH randomised controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2009 May. 13(27):iii-iv, ix-x, 1-163. [Medline].

  96. Kramer LC, Richards PA, Thompson AM, Harper DP, Fairchok MP. Alternating antipyretics: antipyretic efficacy of acetaminophen versus acetaminophen alternated with ibuprofen in children. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2008 Nov. 47(9):907-11. [Medline].

  97. Torrey SB, Henretig F, Fleisher G, Goldstein RM, Ardire A, Ludwig S, et al. Temperature response to antipyretic therapy in children: relationship to occult bacteremia. Am J Emerg Med. 1985 May. 3(3):190-2. [Medline].

  98. Brown JC, Burns JL, Cummings P. Ampicillin use in infant fever: a systematic review. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Jan. 156(1):27-32. [Medline].

  99. Byington CL, Rittichier KK, Bassett KE, Castillo H, Glasgow TS, Daly J, et al. Serious bacterial infections in febrile infants younger than 90 days of age: the importance of ampicillin-resistant pathogens. Pediatrics. 2003 May. 111(5 Pt 1):964-8. [Medline].

  100. Sadow KB, Derr R, Teach SJ. Bacterial infections in infants 60 days and younger: epidemiology, resistance, and implications for treatment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Jun. 153(6):611-4. [Medline].

  101. Cohen C, King A, Lin CP, Friedman GK, Monroe K, Kutny M. Protocol for Reducing Time to Antibiotics in Pediatric Patients Presenting to an Emergency Department With Fever and Neutropenia: Efficacy and Barriers. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2015 Mar 27. [Medline].

  102. Baker MD, Bell LM, Avner JR. The efficacy of noninvasive in hospital and outpatient management of febrile infants: a four year experience. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20:445.

  103. Ishimine P. Fever without source in children 0 to 36 months of age. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2006 Apr. 53(2):167-94. [Medline].

  104. Dagan R, Sofer S, Phillip M, Shachak E. Ambulatory care of febrile infants younger than 2 months of age classified as being at low risk for having serious bacterial infections. J Pediatr. 1988 Mar. 112(3):355-60. [Medline].

  105. Baskin MN, O'Rourke EJ, Fleisher GR. Outpatient treatment of febrile infants 28 to 89 days of age with intramuscular administration of ceftriaxone. J Pediatr. 1992 Jan. 120(1):22-7. [Medline].

  106. Baker MD, Bell LM, Avner JR. Outpatient management without antibiotics of fever in selected infants. N Engl J Med. 1993 Nov 11. 329(20):1437-41. [Medline].

  107. Wasserman GM, White CB. Evaluation of the necessity for hospitalization of the febrile infant less than three months of age. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1990 Mar. 9(3):163-9. [Medline].

  108. Barkin RM, Zukin DD. Marx JA, Hockberger RS, Wall RM. Rosen's Emergency Medicine: Concepts and Clinical Practice. 5th ed. 2002:2233-45.

  109. Waisman Y, Siegal N, Siegal G, Amir L, Cohen H, Mimouni M. Role of diagnosis-specific information sheets in parents' understanding of emergency department discharge instructions. Eur J Emerg Med. 2005 Aug. 12(4):159-62. [Medline].

  110. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Evidence based clinical practice guideline for fever of uncertain source in children 2 to 36 months of age [National Guideline Clearinghouse Web site]. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

  111. Kadish HA, Loveridge B, Tobey J, Bolte RG, Corneli HM. Applying outpatient protocols in febrile infants 1-28 days of age: can the threshold be lowered?. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2000 Feb. 39(2):81-8. [Medline].

  112. Yamamoto LG, Worthley RG, Melish ME, Seto DS. A revised decision analysis of strategies in the management of febrile children at risk for occult bacteremia. Am J Emerg Med. 1998 Mar. 16(2):193-207. [Medline].

  113. Practice parameter: the diagnosis, treatment, and evaluation of the initial urinary tract infection in febrile infants and young children. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Quality Improvement. Subcommittee on Urinary Tract Infection. Pediatrics. 1999 Apr. 103(4 Pt 1):843-52. [Medline].

  114. Banks T, Paul SP, Wall M. Managing fever in children with a single antipyretic. Nurs Times. 2013 Feb 19-25. 109(7):24-5. [Medline].

  115. Pereira GL, Tavares NU, Mengue SS, Pizzol Tda S. Therapeutic procedures and use of alternating antipyretic drugs for Fever management in children. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2013 Jan-Feb. 89(1):25-32. [Medline].

  116. Roberts KB. Urinary tract infection: clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of the initial UTI in febrile infants and children 2 to 24 months. Pediatrics. 2011 Sep. 128(3):595-610. [Medline].

  117. Schneider C, Blumberg S, Crain EF. A survey of the management of febrile infants in pediatric emergency departments. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012 Oct. 28(10):1022-6. [Medline].

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.