UNLABELLED: Unilateral axillary temperature is recorded in unconscious patients and children due to its easy approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation of axillary temperature on the two sides and its correlation with oral temperature. SUBJECTS: One hundred and 46 healthy men and women, aged 12 through 52 years. METHODS: Axillary temperature from both sides and oral temperature were recorded using digital electronic thermometer in supine position with due precautions. RESULTS: Difference in temperature on the two sides of axilla was found to vary by as much as 0 degree F to 3.4 degrees F. Therefore, the data was grouped into higher and lower temperature ranges. The difference between mean oral and mean higher axillary temperature was found to be 0.5 degree F +/- 0.6 degree F (r = 0.564) while that in comparison to mean lower axillary temperature was 1.0 degree F +/- 0.89 degree F (r = 0.64). The difference between mean oral and mean axillary temperature was 1.0 degree F +/- 0.80 degree F (r = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our observations, it is found that an average of temperature of both sides of axilla represents the axillary temperature more accurately and to get the correct oral equivalent of axillary temperature one should add 1 degree F to the mean axillary temperature.
UNLABELLED: Unilateral axillary temperature is recorded in unconscious patients and children due to its easy approach. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variation of axillary temperature on the two sides and its correlation with oral temperature. SUBJECTS: One hundred and 46 healthy men and women, aged 12 through 52 years. METHODS: Axillary temperature from both sides and oral temperature were recorded using digital electronic thermometer in supine position with due precautions. RESULTS: Difference in temperature on the two sides of axilla was found to vary by as much as 0 degree F to 3.4 degrees F. Therefore, the data was grouped into higher and lower temperature ranges. The difference between mean oral and mean higher axillary temperature was found to be 0.5 degree F +/- 0.6 degree F (r = 0.564) while that in comparison to mean lower axillary temperature was 1.0 degree F +/- 0.89 degree F (r = 0.64). The difference between mean oral and mean axillary temperature was 1.0 degree F +/- 0.80 degree F (r = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our observations, it is found that an average of temperature of both sides of axilla represents the axillary temperature more accurately and to get the correct oral equivalent of axillary temperature one should add 1 degree F to the mean axillary temperature.
Authors: Peter Le Roux; David K Menon; Giuseppe Citerio; Paul Vespa; Mary Kay Bader; Gretchen M Brophy; Michael N Diringer; Nino Stocchetti; Walter Videtta; Rocco Armonda; Neeraj Badjatia; Julian Böesel; Randall Chesnut; Sherry Chou; Jan Claassen; Marek Czosnyka; Michael De Georgia; Anthony Figaji; Jennifer Fugate; Raimund Helbok; David Horowitz; Peter Hutchinson; Monisha Kumar; Molly McNett; Chad Miller; Andrew Naidech; Mauro Oddo; DaiWai Olson; Kristine O'Phelan; J Javier Provencio; Corinna Puppo; Richard Riker; Claudia Robertson; Michael Schmidt; Fabio Taccone Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Monisha Shcherbakova; Rita Noumeir; Michael Levy; Armelle Bridier; Victor Lestrade; Philippe Jouvet Journal: IEEE Open J Eng Med Biol Date: 2021-12-17
Authors: Peter Le Roux; David K Menon; Giuseppe Citerio; Paul Vespa; Mary Kay Bader; Gretchen M Brophy; Michael N Diringer; Nino Stocchetti; Walter Videtta; Rocco Armonda; Neeraj Badjatia; Julian Böesel; Randall Chesnut; Sherry Chou; Jan Claassen; Marek Czosnyka; Michael De Georgia; Anthony Figaji; Jennifer Fugate; Raimund Helbok; David Horowitz; Peter Hutchinson; Monisha Kumar; Molly McNett; Chad Miller; Andrew Naidech; Mauro Oddo; DaiWai Olson; Kristine O'Phelan; J Javier Provencio; Corinna Puppo; Richard Riker; Claudia Robertson; Michael Schmidt; Fabio Taccone Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Mario A Melgar; Maysam R Homsi; Brooke Happ; Yin Su; Li Tang; Miriam L Gonzalez; Miguela A Caniza Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.603