Dr. Rebecca Dang is an Instructor in the Division of General Pediatrics at Stanford University. She earned her medical degree at Georgetown School of Medicine and completed her pediatric residency at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. She also completed pediatric hospital medicine fellowship and a master’s program in clinical research and epidemiology at Stanford University. Dr. Dang provides clinical care for children on the pediatric ward and newborn nursery.

Dr. Dang’s research interest focuses on high-value pediatric care, which she hopes to improve through building evidence for common, understudied practices. Common practices that are ubiquitous throughout pediatric medicine are temperature measurement and management. Despite temperature measurement and the subsequent detection of ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’ values driving clinical decision making, these temperature thresholds may be outdated or poorly defined. Dr. Dang has led many projects on temperature-related topics, including routine temperature measurement at well-child visits, pediatric temperature percentiles, risk factors for and outcomes of neonatal hypothermia in the newborn nursery, and newborn temperature norms. This work has led to first-author publications in the high-impact journals of Academic Pediatrics, Pediatrics, Journal of Pediatrics, JAMA Network Open, and Hospital Pediatrics. She has secured continual institutional and foundation funding, including a Maternal & Child Health Research Institute clinical trainee award and master’s tuition program, Gerber Foundation main and novice research award, the Department of Pediatrics’ Bridge-to-K Program, and the PEDSnet Scholars Program.

Clinical Focus

  • Pediatric Hospital Medicine

Academic Appointments

Professional Education

  • Board Certification: American Board of Pediatrics, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (2022)
  • Board Certification, American Board of Pediatrics, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (2022)
  • Masters of Science, Stanford University, Clinical Research and Epidemiology (2021)
  • Fellowship: Stanford Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship (2020) CA
  • Board Certification: American Board of Pediatrics, Pediatrics (2018)
  • Residency: Kaiser Permanente Oakland Pediatric Residency (2018) CA
  • Medical Education: Georgetown University School of Medicine (2015) DC

All Publications

  • Resource Utilization and Costs Associated with Approaches to Identify Infants with Early-Onset Sepsis. MDM policy & practice Guan, G., Joshi, N. S., Frymoyer, A., Achepohl, G. D., Dang, R., Taylor, N. K., Salomon, J. A., Goldhaber-Fiebert, J. D., Owens, D. K. 2024; 9 (1): 23814683231226129


    Objective. To compare resource utilization and costs associated with 3 alternative screening approaches to identify early-onset sepsis (EOS) in infants born at ≥35 wk of gestational age, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in 2018. Study Design. Decision tree-based cost analysis of the 3 AAP-recommended approaches: 1) categorical risk assessment (categorization by chorioamnionitis exposure status), 2) neonatal sepsis calculator (a multivariate prediction model based on perinatal risk factors), and 3) enhanced clinical observation (assessment based on serial clinical examinations). We evaluated resource utilization and direct costs (2022 US dollars) to the health system. Results. Categorical risk assessment led to the greatest neonatal intensive care unit usage (210 d per 1,000 live births) and antibiotic exposure (6.8%) compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator (112 d per 1,000 live births and 3.6%) and enhanced clinical observation (99 d per 1,000 live births and 3.1%). While the per-live birth hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar-categorical risk assessment cost $1,360, the neonatal sepsis calculator cost $1,317, and enhanced clinical observation cost $1,310-the cost of infants receiving intervention under categorical risk assessment was approximately twice that of the other 2 strategies. Results were robust to variations in data parameters. Conclusion. The neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches may be preferred to categorical risk assessment as they reduce the number of infants receiving intervention and thus antibiotic exposure and associated costs. All 3 approaches have similar costs over all live births, and prior literature has indicated similar health outcomes. Inclusion of downstream effects of antibiotic exposure in the neonatal period should be evaluated within a cost-effectiveness analysis.Of the 3 approaches recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2018 to identify early-onset sepsis in infants born at ≥35 weeks, the categorical risk assessment approach leads to about twice as many infants receiving evaluation to rule out early-onset sepsis compared with the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches.While the hospital costs of the 3 approaches were similar over the entire population of live births, the neonatal sepsis calculator and enhanced clinical observation approaches reduce antibiotic exposure, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and hospital costs associated with interventions as part of the screening approach compared with the categorical risk assessment approach.

    View details for DOI 10.1177/23814683231226129

    View details for PubMedID 38293656

    View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10826394

  • Incidence of Neonatal Hypothermia in the Newborn Nursery and Associated Factors. JAMA network open Dang, R., Patel, A. I., Weng, Y., Schroeder, A. R., Lee, H. C., Aby, J., Frymoyer, A. 2023; 6 (8): e2331011


    Thermoregulation is a key component of well-newborn care. There is limited epidemiologic data on hypothermia in late preterm and term infants admitted to the nursery. Expanding on these data is essential for advancing evidence-based care in a population that represents more than 3.5 million births per year in the US.To examine the incidence and factors associated with hypothermia in otherwise healthy infants admitted to the newborn nursery following delivery.A retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from May 1, 2015, to August 31, 2021, was conducted at a newborn nursery at a university-affiliated children's hospital. Participants included 23 549 infants admitted to the newborn nursery, from which 321 060 axillary and rectal temperature values were analyzed.Infant and maternal clinical and demographic factors.Neonatal hypothermia was defined according to the World Health Organization threshold of temperature less than 36.5 °C. Hypothermia was further classified by severity (mild: single episode, temperature 36.0-36.4 °C; moderate/severe: persistent or recurrent hypothermia and/or temperature <36.0 °C) and timing (early: all hypothermic episodes occurred within the first 24 hours after birth; late: any episode extended beyond the first 24 hours).Of 23 549 included infants (male, 12 220 [51.9%]), 5.6% were late preterm (35-36 weeks' gestation) and 4.3% were low birth weight (≤2500 g). The incidence of mild hypothermia was 17.1% and the incidence of moderate/severe hypothermia was 4.6%. Late hypothermia occurred in 1.8% of infants. Lower birth weight and gestational age and Black and Asian maternal race and ethnicity had the highest adjusted odds across all classifications of hypothermia. The adjusted odds ratios of moderate/severe hypothermia were 5.97 (95% CI 4.45-8.00) in infants with a birth weight less than or equal to 2500 vs 3001 to 3500 g, 3.17 (95% CI 2.24-4.49) in 35 week' vs 39 weeks' gestation, and 2.65 (95% CI 1.78-3.96) in infants born to Black mothers and 1.94 (95% CI 1.61-2.34) in infants born to Asian mothers vs non-Hispanic White mothers.In this cohort study of infants in the inpatient nursery, hypothermia was common, and the incidence varied by hypothermia definition applied. Infants of lower gestational age and birth weight and those born to Black and Asian mothers carried the highest odds of hypothermia. These findings suggest that identifying biological, structural, and social determinants of hypothermia is essential for advancing evidence-based equitable thermoregulatory care.

    View details for DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.31011

    View details for PubMedID 37642965

  • A Cross-sectional Study Characterizing Pediatric Temperature Percentiles in Children at Well-Child Visits. Academic pediatrics Dang, R., Schroeder, A. R., Weng, Y., Wang, M. E., Patel, A. I. 2022


    BACKGROUND: Temperature measurement plays a central role in determining pediatric patients' disease risk and management. However, current pediatric temperature thresholds may be outdated and not applicable to children.OBJECTIVE: To characterize pediatric temperature norms and variation by patient characteristics, time of measurement, and thermometer route.METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed 134,641 well-child visits occurring between 2014-2019 at primary care clinics that routinely measured temperature. We performed bivariate and multivariable quantile regressions with clustered standard errors to determine temperature percentiles and variation by age, sex, time of measurement, and thermometer route. We performed sensitivity analyses: 1) using a cohort that excluded visits with infectious diagnoses that could explain temperature aberrations and 2) including clinic as a fixed effect.RESULTS: The median rectal temperature for visits of infants ≤12 months old was 37.2˚C, which was 0.4˚C higher than the median axillary temperature. The median axillary temperature for children 1-18 years old was 36.7˚C, which was 0.1˚C lower than the median values of all other routes. The 99th percentile for rectal temperatures in infants was 37.8˚C and the 99.9th percentile for axillary temperatures in children was 38.5˚C. Adjusted analyses did not demonstrate clinically significant variation in temperature by sex, age, or time of measurement.CONCLUSIONS: These updated temperature norms can serve as reference values in clinical practice and should be considered in the context of thermometer route used and the clinical condition being evaluated. Variations in temperature values by sex, age, and time of measurement were not clinically significant.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.acap.2022.07.015

    View details for PubMedID 35914730

  • Defining Normal. JAMA pediatrics Schroeder, A. R., Dang, R. 2022

    View details for DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.0801

    View details for PubMedID 35467711

  • Temperature Measurement at Well-Child Visits in the United States. The Journal of pediatrics Dang, R. n., Schroeder, A. R., Patel, A. I., Parsonnet, J. n., Wang, M. n. 2021


    To determine the frequency and predictors of temperature measurement at well-child visits in the US and report rates of interventions associated with visits at which temperature is measured and fever is detected.In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed 22,518 sampled well-child visits from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) between 2003 and 2015. We estimated the frequency of temperature measurement and performed multivariable regression to identify patient, provider/clinic and seasonal factors associated with the practice. We described rates of interventions (complete blood count, x-ray, urinalysis, antibiotic prescription, and emergency department/hospital referral) by measurement and fever (temperature ≥100.4˚F, ≥38.0˚C) status.Temperature was measured in 48.5% (95% CI 45.6-51.4) of well-child visits. Measurement was more common during visits by non-pediatric providers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.5; ref: pediatricians), in Hispanic (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.3) and Black (aOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9; ref: non-Hispanic White) patients, and in patients with government (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.7-2.4; ref: private) insurance. Interventions were more commonly pursued when temperature was measured (aOR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6) and fever was detected (aOR 3.8, 95% CI 1.5-9.4).Temperature was measured in nearly half of all well-child visits. Interventions were more common when temperature was measured and fever was detected. The value of routine temperature measurement during well-child visits warrants further evaluation.

    View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.01.045

    View details for PubMedID 33508277

  • Frequency and Consequences of Routine Temperature Measurement at Well-Child Visits. Pediatrics Dang, R., Patel, A. I., Marlow, J., Weng, Y., Wang, M. E., Schroeder, A. R. 2021


    To determine the (1) frequency and visit characteristics of routine temperature measurement and (2) rates of interventions by temperature measurement practice and the probability of incidental fever detection.In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed well-child visits between 2014-2019. We performed multivariable regression to characterize visits associated with routine temperature measurement and conducted generalized estimating equations regression to determine adjusted rates of interventions (antibiotic prescription, and diagnostic testing) and vaccine deferral by temperature measurement and fever status, clustered by clinic and patient. Through dual independent chart review, fever (≥100.4°F) was categorized as probable, possible, or unlikely to be incidentally detected.Temperature measurement occurred at 155 527 of 274 351 (58.9%) well-child visits. Of 24 clinics, 16 measured temperature at >90% of visits ("routine measurement clinics") and 8 at <20% of visits ("occasional measurement clinics"). After adjusting for age, ethnicity, race, and insurance, antibiotic prescription was more common (adjusted odds ratio: 1.21; 95% CI 1.13-1.29), whereas diagnostic testing was less common (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76; 95% CI 0.71-0.82) at routine measurement clinics. Fever was detected at 270 of 155 527 (0.2%) routine measurement clinic visits, 47 (17.4%) of which were classified as probable incidental fever. Antibiotic prescription and diagnostic testing were more common at visits with probable incidental fever than without fever (7.4% vs 1.7%; 14.8% vs 1.2%; P < .001), and vaccines were deferred at 50% such visits.Temperature measurement occurs at more than one-half of well-child visits and is a clinic-driven practice. Given the impact on subsequent interventions and vaccine deferral, the harm-benefit profile of this practice warrants consideration.

    View details for DOI 10.1542/peds.2021-053412

    View details for PubMedID 34890449