Wrong typo in the abstract of the original article leads to a wrong argument in another Hsiu-Nien Shen, Chi Mei Medical Center 5 November 2013 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 (http://ccforum.com/content/16/1/R33). 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 ( http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1742159, 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." (http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1742159, paragraph1 line 3) I wish this could be amended. Thank you. Competing interests No competing interests.