The Pediatric Forum |

Differentiation of Adenoviral Infection and Kawasaki Disease

Leslie L. Barton, MD
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(1):96-97. doi:10.1001/archpedi.155.1.95.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


I read with interest the article by Barone et al,1 which demonstrates the difficulties of differentiating acute adenoviral infection from Kawasaki disease and the value of a rapid antigen detection assay for adenovirus. The author did not detect a significant difference in age between the 2 patient groups. Children with Kawasaki disease had a mean ± SD age of 39 ± 22 months vs a mean ± SD age of 64 ± 33 months in children with adenovirus infection. None of the 36 patients with Kawasaki disease, in contrast with 2 of the 7 patients with adenoviral infection, were older than 61 months. Five of 7 patients with adenoviral infection were older than 4 years. Of previously reported patients with Kawasaki disease, 80% have been younger than 4 years and 90% younger than 5 years. A more appropriate measurement in this instance might have been the median or mode for age in months. Incidentally, the small number of children with adenoviral infection (7) also makes tests of statistical significance susceptible to a type II error. One final question remains: Was cobblestoning of the palpebral conjunctiva, known to be associated with adenovirus disease, noted in study patients with this infection? This could provide another valuable clinical clue to disease differentiation. Despite these relatively small quibbles, the study and its results once again underscore the importance of ascertaining the etiology of Kawasaki disease to facilitate rational therapy. Until then, Kawasaki disease may well be characterized as a syndrome.


Sign In to Access Full Content

Don't have Access?

Register and get free email Table of Contents alerts, saved searches, PowerPoint downloads, CME quizzes, and more

Subscribe for full-text access to content from 1998 forward and a host of useful features

Activate your current subscription (AMA members and current subscribers)

Purchase Online Access to this article for 24 hours

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.