There is increasing evidence on the aetiology and management of fevers in Asia, the importance of which has risen with declines in malaria incidence.
To conduct a narrative review of the epidemiology and management of fevers in South and South-East Asia and to highlight gaps in our knowledge that impair evidence-based health policy decisions.
A narrative review of papers published since 2012 of developments in fever epidemiology, diagnosis and treatment in South and South-East Asia. The papers that the authors felt were pivotal, from their personal perspectives, are discussed.
We identified 100 studies. Among thirty studies (30%) including both children and adults that investigated three or more pathogens, dengue was reported the most frequently, by 15 (50%), followed by leptospirosis by 8 (27%), scrub typhus by 7 (23%) and Salmonella Typhi by 6 (20%). Among four studies investigating three or more pathogens in children, dengue and Staphylococcus aureus were the most frequent, followed by non-typhoidal Salmonella spp., Streptococcus pneumoniae, Salmomella Typhi, and scrub typhus. Increased awareness that rickettsial pathogens are common but will not respond to cephalosporins and that alternatives, such as tetracyclines, are required is needed.
Many key gaps remain and consensus guidelines for study design are needed to aid comparative understanding of the epidemiology of fevers. More investment in developing accurate and affordable diagnostic tests for rural Asia and independent evaluation of those on the market are needed. Treatment algorithms, including simple biomarker assays, appropriate for empirical therapy of fevers in different areas of rural Asia should be a major aim of fever research. Enhanced antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance and openly accessible databases of geography-specific AMR data would inform empirical and specific therapy policy. More investment in innovative strategies facilitating infectious disease surveillance in remote rural communities would be an important component of poverty reduction and improving public health.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 August 2026.
All research outputs
#7,162,454
of 33,779,198 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Microbiology and Infection
#2,264
of 5,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,177
of 372,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Microbiology and Infection
#46
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,779,198 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 372,487 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.
