AIM AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a disposable thermometer was at least as accurate as a tympanic thermometer when compared with a mercury-in-glass thermometer and to investigate the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers. BACKGROUND: Although different methods of temperature measurement have been widely studied and described during the last decade, comparison between readings obtained when measuring body temperature using disposable, mercury-in-glass and tympanic thermometers is little documented and there is confusion about the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers. METHODS: This research was descriptive and comparative. Temperature measurements included three sequential readings using first a tympanic thermometer in the left ear, then a disposable thermometer in the left axillary area and finally a mercury-in-glass thermometer in the right axillary area. All the temperatures were measured on the Celsius (degrees C) scale. To identify the stabilization periods of the mercury-in-glass thermometers, the temperature measurement was repeated until the reading stabilized. F-tests were used to compare readings of the mean temperatures. RESULTS: It was found that body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer by 0.12 degrees C, body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary disposable thermometer readings by 0.65 degrees C and body temperature readings measured by axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer were higher by 0.53 degrees C than readings measured by axillary disposable thermometer. It was found that readings measured by mercury-in-glass thermometer stabilized in the eighth minute. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: When assessing body temperature it is important to take the type of thermometer into consideration. In addition, axillary mercury-in-glass thermometers must be kept in place a minimum of eight minutes.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a disposable thermometer was at least as accurate as a tympanic thermometer when compared with a mercury-in-glass thermometer and to investigate the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers. BACKGROUND: Although different methods of temperature measurement have been widely studied and described during the last decade, comparison between readings obtained when measuring body temperature using disposable, mercury-in-glass and tympanic thermometers is little documented and there is confusion about the waiting periods of mercury-in-glass thermometers. METHODS: This research was descriptive and comparative. Temperature measurements included three sequential readings using first a tympanic thermometer in the left ear, then a disposable thermometer in the left axillary area and finally a mercury-in-glass thermometer in the right axillary area. All the temperatures were measured on the Celsius (degrees C) scale. To identify the stabilization periods of the mercury-in-glass thermometers, the temperature measurement was repeated until the reading stabilized. F-tests were used to compare readings of the mean temperatures. RESULTS: It was found that body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer by 0.12 degrees C, body temperature readings measured by tympanic thermometer were higher than axillary disposable thermometer readings by 0.65 degrees C and body temperature readings measured by axillary mercury-in-glass thermometer were higher by 0.53 degrees C than readings measured by axillary disposable thermometer. It was found that readings measured by mercury-in-glass thermometer stabilized in the eighth minute. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: When assessing body temperature it is important to take the type of thermometer into consideration. In addition, axillary mercury-in-glass thermometers must be kept in place a minimum of eight minutes.
Authors: Jong Seo Yoon; Dae-Chul Jeong; Jae-Won Oh; Keun Young Lee; Hyun Seung Lee; Young Yull Koh; Jin Tack Kim; Jin Han Kang; Joon Sung Lee Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Mariana A Nemezio; Katharina Mh De Oliveira; Priscilla C Romualdo; Alexandra M Queiroz; Francisco Wg Paula-E-Silva; Raquel Ab Silva; Erika C Küchler Journal: Int J Clin Pediatr Dent Date: 2017-02-27