BACKGROUND: Rectal thermometry is considered the most reliable method for measuring the temperature in the paediatric population. Recently, a new non-contact skin infrared thermometer for children was introduced in the market with excellent acceptance by parents. METHODS: A prospective, analytical, cross-sectional study was designed in order to assess the effectiveness of the infrared non-contact thermometer (Thermofocus) in comparison with two other known methods used to measure body temperature. Children aged 1 to 48 months were included from the emergency room and inpatient unit. All patients selected were assessed with three different thermometers: (1) non-contact infrared thermometer (Thermofocus); (2) temporal artery thermometer (Exergen); and (3) rectal glass mercury thermometer. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were eligible to complete the study. One hundred and sixty-seven were identified with fever. The mean age of the patients studied was 14.6 ± 10.7 months. Both devices were strongly correlated with the rectal temperature: r = 0.950 for Exergen and r = 0.952 for Thermofocus. The mean difference in temperature between the rectal temperature and the non-contact thermometer was 0.029 ± 0.01 °C (P < 0.001), while the mean difference between the temporal artery thermometer and the rectal temperature was -0.20 ± 0.27 °C (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity for the non-contact thermometer is 97%. The negative predictive value is 99%, which is especially important to rule out fever and avoid unnecessary laboratory work-up. CONCLUSIONS: The non-contact infrared thermometer is a reliable, comfortable and accurate option for measurement of temperature and is very useful for the screening of fever in the paediatric population. More studies are recommended to support the evidence found in this study and compare its accuracy with more complex devices.
BACKGROUND: Rectal thermometry is considered the most reliable method for measuring the temperature in the paediatric population. Recently, a new non-contact skin infrared thermometer for children was introduced in the market with excellent acceptance by parents. METHODS: A prospective, analytical, cross-sectional study was designed in order to assess the effectiveness of the infrared non-contact thermometer (Thermofocus) in comparison with two other known methods used to measure body temperature. Children aged 1 to 48 months were included from the emergency room and inpatient unit. All patients selected were assessed with three different thermometers: (1) non-contact infrared thermometer (Thermofocus); (2) temporal artery thermometer (Exergen); and (3) rectal glass mercury thermometer. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four patients were eligible to complete the study. One hundred and sixty-seven were identified with fever. The mean age of the patients studied was 14.6 ± 10.7 months. Both devices were strongly correlated with the rectal temperature: r = 0.950 for Exergen and r = 0.952 for Thermofocus. The mean difference in temperature between the rectal temperature and the non-contact thermometer was 0.029 ± 0.01 °C (P < 0.001), while the mean difference between the temporal artery thermometer and the rectal temperature was -0.20 ± 0.27 °C (P < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity for the non-contact thermometer is 97%. The negative predictive value is 99%, which is especially important to rule out fever and avoid unnecessary laboratory work-up. CONCLUSIONS: The non-contact infrared thermometer is a reliable, comfortable and accurate option for measurement of temperature and is very useful for the screening of fever in the paediatric population. More studies are recommended to support the evidence found in this study and compare its accuracy with more complex devices.
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: José Henrique Silvah; Cristiane Maria Mártires de Lima; Maria do Rosário Del Lama de Unamuno; Marco Antônio Alves Schetino; Luana Pereira Leite Schetino; Priscila Giácomo Fassini; Camila Fernanda Costa e Cunha Moraes Brandão; Anibal Basile-Filho; Selma Freire Carvalho da Cunha; Julio Sergio Marchini Journal: Einstein (Sao Paulo) Date: 2015 Jul-Sep
Authors: Sara Sollai; Carlo Dani; Elettra Berti; Claudia Fancelli; Luisa Galli; Maurizio de Martino; Elena Chiappini Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.692