BACKGROUND: Rhinovirus (RV) is one of the most common etiologic agents of acute respiratory infection (ARI), which is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young children. The clinical significance of RV co-detection with other respiratory viruses, including respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), remains unclear. We aimed to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with ARI-associated RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection-with an emphasis on RV/RSV co-detection. METHODS: We conducted a prospective viral surveillance study (11/2015-7/2016) in Nashville, Tennessee. Children < 18 years old who presented to the emergency department (ED) or were hospitalized with fever and/or respiratory symptoms of < 14 days duration were eligible if they resided in one of nine counties in Middle Tennessee. Demographics and clinical characteristics were collected by parental interviews and medical chart abstractions. Nasal and/or throat specimens were collected and tested for RV, RSV, metapneumovirus, adenovirus, parainfluenza 1-4, and influenza A-C using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assays. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of children with RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection using Pearson\'s chi(2) test for categorical variables and the two-sample t-test with unequal variances for continuous variables. RESULTS: Of 1250 children, 904 (72.3%) were virus-positive. RV was the most common virus (n = 406; 44.9%), followed by RSV (n = 207; 19.3%). Of 406 children with RV, 289 (71.2%) had RV-only detection, and 117 (28.8%) had RV co-detection. The most common virus co-detected with RV was RSV (n = 43; 36.8%). Children with RV co-detection were less likely than those with RV-only detection to be diagnosed with asthma or reactive airway disease both in the ED and in-hospital. We did not identify differences in hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, supplemental oxygen use, or length of stay between children with RV-only detection and those with RV co-detection. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence that RV co-detection was associated with poorer outcomes. However, the clinical significance of RV co-detection is heterogeneous and varies by virus pair and age group. Future studies of RV co-detection should incorporate analyses of RV/non-RV pairs and include age as a key covariate of RV contribution to clinical manifestations and infection outcomes.