• Am. J. Med. · Jul 2024

    Fever of Unknown Origin (FUO) Criteria Influences Diagnostic Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

    • William F Wright, Jiangxia Wang, and Paul G Auwaerter.
    • Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: wwrigh19@jhmi.edu.
    • Am. J. Med. 2024 Jul 26.

    BackgroundCriteria classifying fever of unknown origin (FUO) patients remains subject to discrepancies. A minimal standardized set of investigative tests serves as the foundation for the qualitative criteria, whereas quantitative incorporates the length of evaluation (7 or 3 days). A systematic review of studies would help physicians anticipate the frequency of illness types that could influence management.MethodsProspective studies published in Medline (PubMed), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from January 1, 1997 to July 31, 2022, were included. A meta-analysis estimated associated pooled proportions between these criteria and diagnostic outcomes adjusted to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10) definitions.ResultsFive qualitative studies corresponded to an increase of 15.3% (95% CI: 2.3%-28.3%, P = .021) in undiagnosed FUO proportions compared to eleven quantitative studies. Quantitative studies had 19.7% (95% CI: 6.0%-33.4%, P = .005) more in adjusted infectious disease proportions than qualitative studies. No significant differences in proportions between FUO defining criteria were noted for adjusted noninfectious inflammatory disorders (P = .318), oncology (P = .901), non-inflammatory miscellaneous disorders (P = .321), diagnostic evaluation process, gross national income (GNI), or World Health Organization (WHO) geographic region.ConclusionsUse of either qualitative or quantitative FUO criteria was associated with a statistically significant risk of over- or under-estimating infectious diseases and undiagnosed illnesses when using an ICD-10 adjusted FUO five-category system. Clinicians should anticipate differences depending on which criteria are used. While further research is warranted, qualitative criteria provide the best framework for study comparisons.Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.