OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the accuracy of a non-contact infrared thermometer compared with a rectal thermometer. METHODS: Two hundred patients, ages 1 month to 4 years, were included in the study. Each child underwent contemporaneous standard rectal thermometry and mid forehead non-contact infrared thermometry. Clinical features, including chief complaint, recently administered antipyretic agents, and ambient temperature at the time of measurement, were included. ANALYSIS: Linear models were used to compare agreement between the 2 techniques, as well as to determine bias of infrared thermometry at different rectal temperatures. Multivariate linear models were used to evaluate the impact of clinical variables and ambient temperature. RESULTS: A linear relationship between rectal and infrared temperature measurements was observed; however, the coefficient of determination (r(2)) value between was only 0.48 (P < 0.01). Infrared thermometry tended to overestimate the temperature of afebrile children and underestimate the temperature of febrile patients (P < .01). Ambient temperature and child age did not affect the accuracy of the device. CONCLUSION: In this study, non-contact infrared thermometry did not sufficiently agree with rectal thermometer to indicate its routine use. Copyright (c) 2010 Emergency Nurses Association. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the accuracy of a non-contact infrared thermometer compared with a rectal thermometer. METHODS: Two hundred patients, ages 1 month to 4 years, were included in the study. Each child underwent contemporaneous standard rectal thermometry and mid forehead non-contact infrared thermometry. Clinical features, including chief complaint, recently administered antipyretic agents, and ambient temperature at the time of measurement, were included. ANALYSIS: Linear models were used to compare agreement between the 2 techniques, as well as to determine bias of infrared thermometry at different rectal temperatures. Multivariate linear models were used to evaluate the impact of clinical variables and ambient temperature. RESULTS: A linear relationship between rectal and infrared temperature measurements was observed; however, the coefficient of determination (r(2)) value between was only 0.48 (P < 0.01). Infrared thermometry tended to overestimate the temperature of afebrile children and underestimate the temperature of febrile patients (P < .01). Ambient temperature and child age did not affect the accuracy of the device. CONCLUSION: In this study, non-contact infrared thermometry did not sufficiently agree with rectal thermometer to indicate its routine use. Copyright (c) 2010 Emergency Nurses Association. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Kay Wang; Peter Gill; Jane Wolstenholme; Christopher P Price; Carl Heneghan; Matthew Thompson; Annette Plüddemann Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Gail Hayward; Jan Y Verbakel; Fatene Abakar Ismail; George Edwards; Kay Wang; Susannah Fleming; Gea A Holtman; Margaret Glogowska; Elizabeth Morris; Kathryn Curtis; Ann van den Bruel Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2020-03-26 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ann Van den Bruel; Jan Verbakel; Kay Wang; Susannah Fleming; Gea Holtman; Margaret Glogowska; Elizabeth Morris; George Edwards; Fatene Abakar Ismail; Kathryn Curtis; James Goetz; Grace Barnes; Ralitsa Slivkova; Charlotte Nesbitt; Suhail Aslam; Ealish Swift; Harriet Williams; Gail Hayward Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.014
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