Open Access Highly Accessed Open Badges Research

Association of body temperature and antipyretic treatments with mortality of critically ill patients with and without sepsis: multi-centered prospective observational study

Fever and Antipyretic in Critically ill patients Evaluation (FACE) Study Group, Byung Ho Lee, Daisuke Inui, Gee Young Suh, Jae Yeol Kim, Jae Young Kwon, Jisook Park, Keiichi Tada, Keiji Tanaka, Kenichi Ietsugu, Kenji Uehara, Kentaro Dote, Kimitaka Tajimi, Kiyoshi Morita, Koichi Matsuo, Koji Hoshino, Koji Hosokawa, Kook Hyun Lee, Kyoung Min Lee, Makoto Takatori, Masaji Nishimura, Masamitsu Sanui, Masanori Ito, Moritoki Egi*, Naofumi Honda, Naoko Okayama, Nobuaki Shime, Ryosuke Tsuruta, Satoshi Nogami, Seok-Hwa Yoon, Shigeki Fujitani, Shin Ok Koh, Shinhiro Takeda, Shinsuke Saito, Sung Jin Hong, Takeshi Yamamoto, Takeshi Yokoyama, Takuhiro Yamaguchi, Tomoki Nishiyama, Toshiko Igarashi, Yasuyuki Kakihana and Younsuck Koh

Critical Care 2012, 16:R33  doi:10.1186/cc11211

See related commentary by Cavaillon,

PubMed Commons is an experimental system of commenting on PubMed abstracts, introduced in October 2013. Comments are displayed on the abstract page, but during the initial closed pilot, only registered users can read or post comments. Any researcher who is listed as an author of an article indexed by PubMed is entitled to participate in the pilot. If you would like to participate and need an invitation, please email, giving the PubMed ID of an article on which you are an author. For more information, see the PubMed Commons FAQ.

Wrong typo in the abstract of the original article leads to a wrong argument in another

Hsiu-Nien Shen   (2013-11-05 10:23)  Chi Mei Medical Center email

Dear Editor,

I read with interest the article in Critical Care by Lee and coworkers, who investigated the association of body temperature and antipyretic treatments with mortality of critically ill patients with and without sepsis ( I found that the last statement in the Results of the Abstract is incorrect, which may have led to a wrong argument in another article in Chest (, paragraph1 line 3).

In the abstract, the author stated that "Relative to the reference range (MAXICU 36.5��C to 37.4��C), MAXICU �� 39.5��C increased risk of 28-day mortality in septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P = 0.01), but not in non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, P = 0.11)."

In the results of main text (Multivariate analysis), the same finding is shown as "In septic patients relative to the reference range (36.5��C to 37.4��C), MAXICU 37.5��C to 38.4��C was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.45, P = 0.014) and MAXICU �� 38.5��C was not (adjusted odds ratio 38.5��C to 39.4��C; 0.52, P = 0.09, �� 39.5��C; 0.47, P = 0.11). In non-septic patients, adjusted risk of death was increased as MAXICU increased, and MAXICU �� 39.5��C was associated with mortality (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P = 0.01) (Table 4)."

In the Point/Counterpoint Editorials of the Chest journal on "Should Antipyretic Therapy Be Given Routinely to Febrile Patients in Septic Shock?", the above statement in the abstract was cited as "...., the magnitude of fever has been associated with higher mortality in sepsis." (, paragraph1 line 3)

I wish this could be amended. Thank you.

Competing interests

No competing interests.


Post a comment