LETTER TO THE EDITOR |
To the Editor.
The conclusion of the report by Trautner et al1 was that all children with a temperature >106°F should be treated with antibiotics. However, I could not tell from the report how many of those children (0?) with a temperature >106°F had no other serious disease, such as pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or underlying serious chronic disease, that would warrant antibiotics anyway.
Why wasn't the conclusion that children with a temperature >106°F and no other serious treatable disease should not be treated with antibiotics? It might be construed that treatment with antibiotics (which antibiotic?) can substitute for a cogent workup. It is important to see that complete blood counts are not worth much, though; let's stop doing them.
What was the outcome of the 3 children with serious bacterial disease who were not initially treated with antibiotics?
REFERENCE
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||