Fever detection in under 5 children in a tertiary health facility using the infrared tympanic thermometer in the oral mode (original) (raw)
Related papers
International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 2002
Objective: The objective in this study was to compare the accuracy of the tympanic membrane infrared thermometer with the other conventional temperature measurement options. Methods: One hundred and ten randomly selected pediatric patients who admitted to our emergency room were included in the study. Each child underwent simultaneous temperature measurement via rectum, axilla, and external auditory canal. The rectal and axillary measurements were performed using conventional mercury in glass thermometers. The aural measurement was performed using the non-contact infrared thermometer (Braun ThermoScan IRT 1020, Germany). Results: On aural measurement, the results of both ears as well as the first, second and third measurements were similar (P<0.01). The mean results of the axillary, rectal and tympanic temperature measurements were 37.46±1, 38.18±1, and 38.01±1.1, respectively. The mean axillary temperature was 0.72 °C lower than the mean rectal temperature, and 0.55 °C lower than the tympanic temperature. The difference between the mean tympanic and rectal temperatures was 0.17 °C. The results of measurements via rectum, axilla and ear were similar (P<0.01). Conclusion: In conclusion, it is apparent that each of the temperature measurement options has some advantages and disadvantages. An optimal thermometer should have the following features; accurate temperature measurement; ease of application in a short while; safety and absence of potential risks; and tolerability by the patient. Since the aural infrared thermometer meets these criteria, its use in the routine clinical practice appears to be advantageous rather than or complementary to the conventional methods.
2018
We measured the skin temperature over the forehead, jugular notch, and neck and compared all three infrared skin temperature sites, axillary digital, and infrared tympanic readings with the rectal temperature in children in a pediatric emergency observation unit. This study enrolled 139 patients ranging in age from 1 month to 4 years seen in the pediatric emergency observation room. The temperatures in the rectum and axilla were measured with a digital thermometer, and a non-contact infrared thermometer was used to measure the temperature of the skin over the lateral side of neck, jugular notch, forehead and the tympanic temperature. During the examination of each child, 17 temperatures were measured within 10 minutes, including six (three for each ear) tympanic and three infrared skin temperatures at each of the three sites, one axilla, and one rectal reading. Fever was defined as a rectal temperature ≥ 38°C, and 56 patients fulfilled this definition. All measurements were compared...
Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2011
Aims. To assess the performance of the non-contact infrared thermometer compared with mercury-in-glass thermometer in children; to assess the diagnostic accuracy of non-contact infrared thermometer for detecting children with fever; to compare the discomfort caused by the two procedures in children aged > one month. Background. Non-contact infrared thermometer is a quick and non-invasive method to measure body temperature, not requiring sterilisation or disposables. It is a candidate for temperature recording in children. Design. Prospective multicenter study. Methods. Body temperature readings were taken from every child consecutively admitted to the Pediatric Emergency Departments or Pediatric Clinics participating in the study. Two bilateral axillary temperature measurements using the mercuryin-glass thermometers and three mid-forehead temperature measurements using the non-contact infrared thermometer were performed. Results. Two hundred and fifty-one children were enrolled in the study. Mean body temperature obtained by mercury-in-glass thermometer and non-contact infrared thermometer was 37AE18 (SD 0AE96)°C and 37AE30 (SD 0AE92)°C, respectively (p = 0AE153). Non-contact infrared thermometer clinical repeatability was 0AE108 (SD 0AE095)°C, similar to that of the mercury-in-glass thermometer (0AE11 SD 01°C; p = 0AE517). Bias was 0AE0150 (SD 0AE09)°C. The proportion of outliers >1°C was 4/251 children (1AE59%). A significant correlation between temperature values obtained with the two procedures was observed (r 2 = 0AE84; p < 0AE0001). The limits of agreement, by the Bland and Altman method, were À0AE62 (95% CI: À0AE47 to À0AE67) and 0AE76 (95% CI: 0AE61-0AE91). No significant correlation was evidenced between the difference of the body temperature values recorded by the two methods and age (p = 0AE226), or room temperature (p = 0AE756). Calculating the receiver operating characteristic curve to determine the best threshold for axillary temperature >38AE0°C, for a non-contact infrared thermometer temperature = 37AE98°C the sensitivity was 88AE7% and the specificity 89AE9%. Mean distress score (on a 5-point scale) was significantly lower using the non-contact infrared thermometer than using the mercury-in-glass thermometer (1AE92 SD 0AE56 and 2AE40 SD0AE93, respectively; p < 0AE0001). Conclusion. Non-contact infrared thermometer showed a good performance in our study population, has the advantage of measuring body temperature in two seconds and is comfortable for children. Relevance to clinical practice. Non-contact infrared thermometer may be taken into consideration when assessing body temperature in children aged > one month in hospital or ambulatory.
British Journal of General Practice, 2020
BackgroundGuidelines recommend measuring temperature in children presenting with fever using electronic axillary or tympanic thermometers. Non-contact thermometry offers advantages, yet has not been tested against recommended methods in primary care.AimTo compare two different non-contact infrared thermometers (NCITs) to axillary and tympanic thermometers in children aged ≤5 years visiting their GP with an acute illness.Design and settingMethod comparison study with nested qualitative component.MethodTemperature measurements were taken with electronic axillary (Welch Allyn SureTemp®), electronic tympanic (Braun Thermoscan®), NCIT Thermofocus® 0800, and NCIT Firhealth Forehead. Parents rated acceptability and discomfort. Qualitative interviews explored parents’ experiences of the thermometers.ResultsIn total, 401 children were recruited (median age 1.6 years, 50.62% male). Mean difference between the Thermofocus NCIT and axillary thermometer was −0.14°C (95% confidence interval [CI] ...
Use of noncontact infrared thermography to measure temperature in children in a triage room
Medicine
We compared the accuracy and utility of 3 infrared (IFR) thermographs fitted with axillary digital thermometers used to measure temperature in febrile and afebrile children admitted to an emergency triage room. A total of 184 febrile and 135 afebrile children presenting to a triage room were consecutively evaluated. Axillary temperature was recorded using a digital electronic thermometer. Simultaneously, IFR skin scans were performed on the forehead, the neck (over the carotid artery), and the nape by the same nurse. Fever was defined as an axillary temperature ≥37.5°C. The temperature readings at the 4 sites were compared. For all subjects, the median axillary temperature was 37.7 ± 1.5°C, the IFR forehead temperature was 37 ± 1.1°C, the IFR neck temperature was 37.6 ± 1.5°C, and the IFR nape temperature was 37 ± 1.2°C. A Bland-Altman plot of the differences suggested that all agreements between IFR and axillary measures were poor (the latter measure was considered the standard). The forehead measurements had a sensitivity of 88.6% and a specificity of 60% in patients with temperatures ≥36.75°C. The sensitivities of the neck measurement at cutoffs of ≥37.35°C and ≥36.95 were 95.5% and 78.8% for those aged 2 to 6 years. Thus, 11.4% of febrile subjects were missed when forehead measurements were performed. An IFR scan over the lateral side of neck is a reliable, comfortable, rapid, and noninvasive method for fever screening, particularly in children aged 2 to 6 years, in busy settings such as pediatric triage rooms. Abbreviations: AD = axillary digital, IFR = infrared, ROC = receiver-operating characteristics.
Open Journal of Pediatrics
Background: Accurate temperature measurement is a critical step in evaluating health or disease especially in children and immmunocompromised subjects; inaccurate measurement may lead to improper diagnosis, wrong treatment or inappropriate intervention. Several methods of temperature measurements exist and comparing these gives room for choosing a near ideal method in terms of speed, safety and accuracy. The study aimed to compare the forehead non touch infra-red thermometer with the axilllary mercury-in-glass method of temperature measurement in the Paediatric age-group. Methods: Study was given ethical approval as part of a larger study. Four hundred and thirty seven children aged 1 to 24 months were studied at the well-baby/immunizationclinic of the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital over a 6-months period. Both non-touch infrared and theregular mercury-in-glass thermometers were used to take the body temperatures. Data were analysed with SPSS version 21. Pearson correlation was used to determine the relationship between the two methods of temperature measurements, while Bland-Altman method was used to test for level of agreement between them. Results: The mean age and SD was 5.81 ± 4.04 months. Pearson correlation showed a positive correlation between the axillary mercury-in-glass and forehead non-touch infra-red thermometry readings (r = 0.281, p < 0.001). Also, Bland-Altman method revealed a good agreement between both methods of thermometry as 96% of the readings were within the limits of agreement. Mean difference was 0.09˚C (95% confidence interval 0.05-0.13
Comparison of Infrared Tympanic Thermometer with Non-Contact Infrared Thermometer
Çocuk Enfeksiyon Dergisi/Journal of Pediatric Infection, 2014
Objective: Non-contact infrared thermometer (NCIT) is a quick, non-invasive, and easy-to-use method to measure body temperature, not requiring sterilization. We aimed to evaluate the reliability of NCIT in the first assessment of patients in a hospital. Material and Methods: The study was carried out in Hacettepe University İhsan Doğramacı Children's Hospital between August and September 2013 with patients older than 4 months who were admitted to the infectious disease outpatient clinic or hospitalized. Body temperature of patients was measured with a tympanic infrared thermometer that is routinely used and with NCIT at the same time. Temperature values, age, and disease of patients were recorded. Results: During the study, 220 measurements were obtained from 76 patients. Fifteen (6.8%) of 220 tympanic measurements were >38.0°C, and 7 of them were also >38.0°C with NCIT measurements. The difference between tympanic and NCIT measurements for each reading was calculated. Positive and negative values were obtained when tympanic readings were higher and lower than NCIT readings, respectively. Mean difference was-0.5°C (±0.3) for negative values and 0.6°C (±0.4)°C for positive ones. Conclusion: NCIT can be preferred for screening of fever, but before routine use in hospitals, more expanded studies with NCIT should be performed.
Background: Evaluation of body temperature is one of the oldest known diagnostic methods and still an important sign of health and disease. Since rectal and oral temperature measurement are uncomfortable, less hygienic and unacceptable in many cultures; axillary has been method of choice in many countries like Ethiopia. In children decisions concerning investigation and treatment may base on results of temperature alone. Although accuracy of axillary temperature measurement is affected by a number of factors, device dwell time and device type are common. Objective: is to compare body temperature among 5 and 10 Min glass-mercury thermometer. Method: Experimental study design was used to compare body temperature among 5Minand 10Min GMT. A total of 98 samples were taken. The GMT (5 and 10min) was taken at the same axilla simultaneously. A statistical significance (p<0.01) and clinical significant (0.2°C) were used. Correlation and Bland-Altman plot were used to observe the agreements of the recording. Results: mean difference (MD) of 5 and10 GMT was 0.13673±0.13112. A statistically significant difference was noted in comparisons of mean temperatures of 10min GMT with 5min GMT (P<0.000), But clinically not significant (MD<0.2°C). The correlation analysis also shows strong positive correlation (r>0.75) and all the MD were fall in the limit of agreement in Bland-Altman plot. Conclusion and Recommendations: Even a statistical significant (p<0.000) difference was observed in 5 min with 10min GMT the strong correlation, their good agreement and clinical insignificant, some important advantages of 5 Min GMT makes better than 10 Min. Their variation in temperature is not likely to change any clinical decision. So health professionals should use 5Min GMT for measuring body temperature in under-5 febrile illness except for neonate. Moreover researchers should repeat the study using core temperature as gold standard for comparison.
A comparison of the use of tympanic, axillary, and rectal thermometers in infants
Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 1999
This study examined the relationship between three instruments used in measuring tympanic, axillary, and rectal temperatures in infants less than 1 year of age. Temperatures were measured by Oto-temp Pedi Q tympanic thermometers, Becton Dickinson axillary thermometer, and rectal thermometers. A convience sample of 5 infants less than 90 day and 54 greater than 90 days with fever, as well as 34 infants less than 90 days and 27 infants greater than 90 days without fever were studied. Correlations of infants less than 90 days and greater 90 days of age, as well as differences between infant temperature with and without fevers as variables, were examined. Results indicated a strong statistical relationship between Oto-Temp Pedi Q, Becton Dickinson axillary temperatures, and rectal temperatures, but not strong enough to base critical clinical decisions. Age and presence or absence of fever significantly affected the relationships between thermometers. Copyright 9 1999 by W.B. Saunders Company p RECISE MEASUREMENT of body temperature is essential in a clinical setting when assessing ill infants under the age of 1 year. Body temperature, the mean measurable heat of the body's metabolism, functions as a significant indicator of an infant's well-being and provides support for nursing assessment and therapeutic management (Glanze, 1988). Arterial blood temperatures are considered precise measurements of body temperature, but are impractical for routine temperature assessment (Mravinac, Dracup, & Clochesy, 1989). Calibrated rectal glass mercury thermometers and electronic rectal thermistors have been considered the "gold standard" for obtaining core temperatures (deep tissue temperature) (Kenney, Fortenberry, Surratt, Ribbeck, & Thomas, 1990; Pransky, 1991). Recent research demonstrates that deep-rectal probes correlate with normal rectal thermometers (Kenney et al., 1990). However, rectal probes are not without disadvantages. Rectal temperature is known to shift slowly and may not accurately reflect changes in situations of flux (Pransky, 1991). Nurses and families consider rectal probes messy, upsetting to infants, and less safe than tympanic thermometers