BACKGROUND: Body temperature is commonly used to screen patients for infectious diseases, establish diagnoses, monitor therapy, and guide management decisions. PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating core body temperature in adults and children. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus from inception to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies comparing the accuracy of peripheral (tympanic membrane, temporal artery, axillary, or oral) thermometers with central (pulmonary artery catheter, urinary bladder, esophageal, or rectal) thermometers. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes and assessed the quality of individual studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: 75 studies (8682 patients) were included. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of patient selection bias (74%) or index test bias (67%). Compared with central thermometers, peripheral thermometers had pooled 95% limits of agreement (random-effects meta-analysis) outside the predefined clinically acceptable range (± 0.5 °C), especially among patients with fever (-1.44 °C to 1.46 °C for adults; -1.49 °C to 0.43 °C for children) and hypothermia (-2.07 °C to 1.90 °C for adults; no data for children). For detection of fever (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis), sensitivity was low (64% [95% CI, 55% to 72%]; I2 = 95.7%; P < 0.001) but specificity was high (96% [CI, 93% to 97%]; I2 = 96.3%; P < 0.001). Only 1 study reported sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hypothermia. LIMITATIONS: High-quality data for some temperature measurement techniques are limited. Pooled data are associated with interstudy heterogeneity that is not fully explained by stratified and metaregression analyses. CONCLUSION: Peripheral thermometers do not have clinically acceptable accuracy and should not be used when accurate measurement of body temperature will influence clinical decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
BACKGROUND: Body temperature is commonly used to screen patients for infectious diseases, establish diagnoses, monitor therapy, and guide management decisions. PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of peripheral thermometers for estimating core body temperature in adults and children. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL Plus from inception to July 2015. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies comparing the accuracy of peripheral (tympanic membrane, temporal artery, axillary, or oral) thermometers with central (pulmonary artery catheter, urinary bladder, esophageal, or rectal) thermometers. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes and assessed the quality of individual studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: 75 studies (8682 patients) were included. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of patient selection bias (74%) or index test bias (67%). Compared with central thermometers, peripheral thermometers had pooled 95% limits of agreement (random-effects meta-analysis) outside the predefined clinically acceptable range (± 0.5 °C), especially among patients with fever (-1.44 °C to 1.46 °C for adults; -1.49 °C to 0.43 °C for children) and hypothermia (-2.07 °C to 1.90 °C for adults; no data for children). For detection of fever (bivariate random-effects meta-analysis), sensitivity was low (64% [95% CI, 55% to 72%]; I2 = 95.7%; P < 0.001) but specificity was high (96% [CI, 93% to 97%]; I2 = 96.3%; P < 0.001). Only 1 study reported sensitivity and specificity for the detection of hypothermia. LIMITATIONS: High-quality data for some temperature measurement techniques are limited. Pooled data are associated with interstudy heterogeneity that is not fully explained by stratified and metaregression analyses. CONCLUSION: Peripheral thermometers do not have clinically acceptable accuracy and should not be used when accurate measurement of body temperature will influence clinical decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.
Authors: Gary J Hodges; Antti M Kiviniemi; Matthew M Mallette; Panagiota Klentrou; Bareket Falk; Stephen S Cheung Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Paul J Young; Michael J Bailey; Frances Bass; Richard W Beasley; Ross C Freebairn; Naomi E Hammond; Frank M P van Haren; Meg L Harward; Seton J Henderson; Diane M Mackle; Colin J McArthur; Shay P McGuinness; John A Myburgh; Manoj K Saxena; Anne M Turner; Steve A R Webb; Rinaldo Bellomo Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 17.440
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: H J Williams; J Ryan Shipley; C Rutz; M Wikelski; M Wilkes; L A Hawkes Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2021-06-28 Impact factor: 6.671
Authors: Emily M Evans; Rebecca J Doctor; Brian F Gage; Richard S Hotchkiss; Brian M Fuller; Anne M Drewry Journal: Shock Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.454