Literature DB >> 32488679

Accuracy and precision of zero-heat-flux temperature measurements with the 3M™ Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aaron Conway1,2,3, Megan Bittner4, Dan Phan4, Kristina Chang5, Navpreet Kamboj4, Elizabeth Tipton6, Matteo Parotto7,8.   

Abstract

Zero-heat-flux thermometers provide clinicians with the ability to continuously and non-invasively monitor body temperature. These devices are increasingly being used to substitute for more invasive core temperature measurements during surgery and in critical care. The aim of this review was to determine the accuracy and precision of zero-heat-flux temperature measurements from the 3M™ Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies that reported on a measurement of core or peripheral temperature that coincided with a measurement from the zero-heat-flux device. Study selection and quality assessment was performed independently using the Revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (QUADAS-2). The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to summarize the strength of the evidence. Pooled estimates of the mean bias and limits of agreement with outer 95% confidence intervals (population limits of agreement) were calculated. Sixteen studies were included. The primary meta-analysis of zero-heat-flux versus core temperature consisted of 22 comparisons from 16 individual studies. Data from 952 participants with 314,137 paired measurements were included. The pooled estimate for the mean bias was 0.03 °C. Population limits of agreement, which take into consideration the between-study heterogeneity and sampling error, were wide, spanning from - 0.93 to 0.98 °C. The GRADE evidence quality rating was downgraded to moderate due to concerns about study limitations. Population limits of agreement for the sensitivity analysis restricted to studies rated as having low risk of bias across all the domains of the QUADAS-2 were similar to the primary analysis. The range of uncertainty in the accuracy of a thermometer should be taken into account when using this device to inform clinical decision-making. Clinicians should therefore consider the potential that a temperature measurement from a 3M™ Bair Hugger™ Temperature Monitoring System could be as much as 1 °C higher or lower than core temperature. Use of this device may not be appropriate in situations where a difference in temperature of less than 1 °C is important to detect.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anesthesia; Measurement; Surgery; Temperature; Zero-heat-flux

Year:  2020        PMID: 32488679     DOI: 10.1007/s10877-020-00543-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput        ISSN: 1387-1307            Impact factor:   2.502


  12 in total

1.  Using the Bland-Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures.

Authors:  P S Myles; J Cui
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Determining the accuracy of zero-flux and ingestible thermometers in the peri-operative setting.

Authors:  James M Jack; Helen Ellicott; Christopher I Jones; Stephen A Bremner; Ian Densham; C Mark Harper
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Zero-heat-flux core temperature monitoring system: an observational secondary analysis to evaluate agreement with naso-/oropharyngeal probe during anesthesia.

Authors:  Nicholas West; Erin Cooke; Dan Morse; Richard N Merchant; Matthias Görges
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2019-11-06       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Rectal and Bladder Temperatures vs Forehead Core Temperatures Measured With SpotOn Monitoring System.

Authors:  Hildy M Schell-Chaple; Kathleen D Liu; Michael A Matthay; Kathleen A Puntillo
Journal:  Am J Crit Care       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.228

5.  Intraoperative temperature monitoring with zero heat flux technology (3M SpotOn sensor) in comparison with sublingual and nasopharyngeal temperature: An observational study.

Authors:  Timo Iden; Ernst-Peter Horn; Berthold Bein; Ruwen Böhm; Janne Beese; Jan Höcker
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Accuracy of Zero-Heat-Flux Cutaneous Temperature in Intensive Care Adults.

Authors:  Claire Dahyot-Fizelier; Solène Lamarche; Thomas Kerforne; Thierry Bénard; Benoit Giraud; Rémy Bellier; Elsa Carise; Denis Frasca; Olivier Mimoz
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Novel Zero-Heat-Flux Deep Body Temperature Measurement in Lower Extremity Vascular and Cardiac Surgery.

Authors:  Marja-Tellervo Mäkinen; Anne Pesonen; Irma Jousela; Janne Päivärinta; Satu Poikajärvi; Anders Albäck; Ulla-Stina Salminen; Eero Pesonen
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 2.628

Review 8.  Temperature monitoring and perioperative thermoregulation.

Authors:  Daniel I Sessler
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 7.892

9.  A comparison of the temperature difference according to the placement of a nasopharyngeal temperature probe.

Authors:  Hyungsun Lim; Boram Kim; Dong-Chan Kim; Sang-Kyi Lee; Seonghoon Ko
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2016-06-22

10.  The focus of temperature monitoring with zero-heat-flux technology (3M Bair-Hugger): a clinical study with patients undergoing craniotomy.

Authors:  Eero Pesonen; Marja Silvasti-Lundell; Tomi T Niemi; Riku Kivisaari; Juha Hernesniemi; Marja-Tellervo Mäkinen
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 2.502

View more
  5 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of a cutaneous zero-heat-flux thermometer during cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Christophe Verheyden; Arne Neyrinck; Annouschka Laenen; Steffen Rex; Elke Van Gerven
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-09-24       Impact factor: 1.977

2.  A Novel Non-Invasive Thermometer for Continuous Core Body Temperature: Comparison with Tympanic Temperature in an Acute Stroke Clinical Setting.

Authors:  Miloš Ajčević; Alex Buoite Stella; Giovanni Furlanis; Paola Caruso; Marcello Naccarato; Agostino Accardo; Paolo Manganotti
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 3.847

3.  Intraoperative zero-heat-flux thermometry overestimates esophageal temperature by 0.26 °C: an observational study in 100 infants and young children.

Authors:  Marcus Nemeth; Marijana Lovric; Thomas Asendorf; Anselm Bräuer; Clemens Miller
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2020-10-31       Impact factor: 1.977

4.  Implementation of continuous temperature monitoring during perioperative care: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Judy Munday; David Sturgess; Sabrina Oishi; Jess Bendeich; Allison Kearney; Clint Douglas
Journal:  Patient Saf Surg       Date:  2022-09-24

5.  Zero-Heat-Flux and Esophageal Temperature Monitoring in Orthopedic Surgery: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Judy Munday; Niall Higgins; Lee Jones; Dimitrios Vagenas; André Van Zundert; Samantha Keogh
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2021-07-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.