You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Methodological issues on analysis of prediction tools in evaluating febrile young infants at risk for serious infections
  1. Mehdi Naderi1,
  2. Siamak Sabour2
  1. 1 Clinical Research Development Centre, Taleghani and Imam Ali Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Kermanshah, Iran (the Islamic Republic of)
  2. 2 Clinical Epidemiology, School of Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of
  1. Correspondence to Professor Siamak Sabour, Clinical Epidemiology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, Islamic Republic of; s.sabour{at}sbmu.ac.ir

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2019-209351

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    Dear Editor,

    We read with great interest the EMJ article by Yao et al entitled ‘Analysis of emergency department prediction tools in evaluating febrile young infants at risk for serious infections (SIs)’ which was published in November 2019.1 The authors’ goals of conducting this study included: first, evaluation of the performance of two clinical tools including the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Traffic Light System and Severity Index Score in predicting SI in all febrile infants and second, to evaluate …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors MN and SS conceptualised and designed the study. MN and SS participated in the writing of the first draft of the manuscript, reviewed the revisions and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles