OBJECTIVE: To compare a number of electronic tympanic, oral, axillary, and rectal measurements with those taken with a standard rectal mercury thermometer. DESIGN: Prospective open study. SETTING: County hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: 200 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Each of 200 patients had 6 electronic measurements of body temperature: 3 in the auditory canal using Ivac Core Check 2090A, Diateck 9000, and Genius 3000A, 1 in the axilla using Terumo Digital C202. 1 in the mouth using Terumo Digital C402, and 1 in the rectum using a Terumo Digital C402. These were compared with readings from a standard mercury glass thermometer in the rectum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of electronic thermometry. RESULTS: The rectal electronic measurements were closest to the rectal mercury readings, with a mean (SD) of -0.05 degrees C (0.12), whereas the other measurements gave unacceptable SDs of temperature differences ranging from 0.41 degrees C to 0.53 degrees C. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that electronic rectal temperature measurements are the most accurate. We do not recommend electronic tympanic, oral, or axillary measurements.
OBJECTIVE: To compare a number of electronic tympanic, oral, axillary, and rectal measurements with those taken with a standard rectal mercury thermometer. DESIGN: Prospective open study. SETTING: County hospital, Denmark. SUBJECTS: 200 patients. INTERVENTIONS: Each of 200 patients had 6 electronic measurements of body temperature: 3 in the auditory canal using Ivac Core Check 2090A, Diateck 9000, and Genius 3000A, 1 in the axilla using Terumo Digital C202. 1 in the mouth using Terumo Digital C402, and 1 in the rectum using a Terumo Digital C402. These were compared with readings from a standard mercury glass thermometer in the rectum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy of electronic thermometry. RESULTS: The rectal electronic measurements were closest to the rectal mercury readings, with a mean (SD) of -0.05 degrees C (0.12), whereas the other measurements gave unacceptable SDs of temperature differences ranging from 0.41 degrees C to 0.53 degrees C. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that electronic rectal temperature measurements are the most accurate. We do not recommend electronic tympanic, oral, or axillary measurements.
Authors: Stephanie M Mazerolle; Matthew S Ganio; Douglas J Casa; Jakob Vingren; Jennifer Klau Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2011 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Diane C Mitchell; Javier Castro; Tracey L Armitage; Alondra J Vega-Arroyo; Sally C Moyce; Daniel J Tancredi; Deborah H Bennett; James H Jones; Tord Kjellstrom; Marc B Schenker Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Nishant Verma; Iman Haji-Abolhassani; Suhas Ganesh; Jesus Vera-Aguilera; Jonas Paludo; Roxana Heitz; Svetomir N Markovic; Kimary Kulig; Atiyeh Ghoreyshi Journal: IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 3.316
Authors: Matthew S Ganio; Christopher M Brown; Douglas J Casa; Shannon M Becker; Susan W Yeargin; Brendon P McDermott; Lindsay M Boots; Paul W Boyd; Lawrence E Armstrong; Carl M Maresh Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Douglas J Casa; Shannon M Becker; Matthew S Ganio; Christopher M Brown; Susan W Yeargin; Melissa W Roti; Jason Siegler; Julie A Blowers; Neal R Glaviano; Robert A Huggins; Lawrence E Armstrong; Carl M Maresh Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2007 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Barbara J Barnett; Stacy Nunberg; Julia Tai; Martin L Lesser; Vladmir Fridman; Patricia Nichols; Richard Powell; Robert Silverman Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2011-11
Authors: An V Nguyen; Nicole J Cohen; Harvey Lipman; Clive M Brown; Noelle Angelique Molinari; William L Jackson; Hannah Kirking; Paige Szymanowski; Todd W Wilson; Bisan A Salhi; Rebecca R Roberts; David W Stryker; Daniel B Fishbein Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 6.883