This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Diagnosis  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We see no reason to discard the term fever of unknown origin, defined in 1961 and familiar to generations of internists by its acronymFUO.¹ It represents one of the most challenging diagnostic problems, addressed in every medical textbook and in leading medical journals.^2-4 Criteria for case definition are a matter of debate in every field of medicine, yet they are essential for meaningful comparison between different series, over time, between regions, and between different types of hospitals.⁴ Most investigators accept the criteria of duration of illness and the degree of temperature elevation. The third criterion (duration of investigation) is more controversial, and a qualitative criterion, consisting of a set of baseline investigations, has been proposed.^3-5 The term FUO should be used with respect to a rigid, updated definition and with diagnostic humility.³ Fever of unknown origin is not a disease but a clinical problem of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Steven Vanderschueren, MD, PhD; Daniël Knockaert, MD, PhD
Leuven, Belgium

RELATED ARTICLES

Why Do We Still Use the Term FUO?
Jae C. Chang
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(17):2102.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Why Do We Still Use the Term FUO?—Reply
Charles S. Bryan
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(17):2103.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

From Prolonged Febrile Illness to Fever of Unknown Origin: The Challenge Continues
Steven Vanderschueren, Daniël Knockaert, Tom Adriaenssens, Wim Demey, Anne Durnez, Daniël Blockmans, and Herman Bobbaers
Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(9):1033-1041.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT