| Title |
Comparison of classical diagnostic criteria and Chinese revised diagnostic criteria for fever of unknown origin in Chinese patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s97863 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jia-Jun Li, Wen-Xiang Huang, Zheng-Yu Shi, Qiu Sun, Xiao-Juan Xin, Jin-Qiu Zhao, Zhen Yin |
| Abstract |
Fever of unknown origin (FUO) has always been a challenging problem for physicians since it was first reported half a century ago. This study aimed to investigate the clinical features of FUO and to compare the clinical significance of the classical diagnostic criteria and the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria of FUO. We retrospectively collected a series of 140 patients admitted to our hospital between September 2011 and June 2013 because of prolonged febrile illnesses (lasting at least 2 weeks, temperature ≥38.5°C) without diagnosis and categorized them into two groups according to the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria (group A) and classical diagnostic criteria (group B) for FUO. The A group included patients presenting with fever persisting between 2 and 3 weeks with the diagnosis remaining uncertain after three outpatient visits or at least 3 days of hospital investigation. The B group included patients presenting with fever persisting for more than 3 weeks with no established diagnosis after 1 week of hospital investigation. The general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods of the two groups were compared. There were no significant differences in the general conditions, etiologies, definite diagnosis times, and diagnostic methods between the Chinese revised diagnostic criteria and classical diagnostic criteria. Both the examined FUO diagnostic criteria are suitable for clinical practice in this region. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 1 | 20% |
| Other | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#925
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,521
of 332,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.